Re: Notes from the Right Wing Echo Chamber
I don't know of any good media criticism shows in the MSM. Fox's show is rephehensible and Howard Kurtz on CNN is conservative when he's on conservative stations and centrist when liberal.....basically he's a media (BLEEP).
Can anyone point out a show that has any credibility. Hey C-SPAN/PBS.. this is good place to explore here
> > WRKO's Pundit Review show from Sunday night is online at
> >
http://www.punditreview.com
> >
> > featuring Brian "Radio Equalizer" Maloney
>
> Oooh, what a shocker: The Unequalizer appears on a right
> wing talk show which exists primarily to serve as part of
> the right wing echo chamber. Of course, there is absolutely
> nothing new in any of it - just an ongoing attempt to try
> and stir up the non-scandal that this is. The recipe is all
> too familiar:
>
> - Small group of people decide to twist and inflate a news
> report about an organization they dislike into something
> beyond what it is. Mix some facts in with a lot of
> unsourced opinion-hiding-as-fact bits and then release it.
>
> - Aligned political blogs echo the story by repeating the
> initial inflated reports and, more often than not, adding
> some additional "spice" to the story to make it sound even
> worse.
>
> - Initial group that released the story in the first place
> re-report it by quoting from the blogs who quoted from them.
> The "new news" is more often than not the made up "spice"
> the other guys threw in to make their stories more juicy.
>
> - The aligned political blogs re-report the re-reports.
> Also, by this time, additional right wing blogs will have
> picked up the story adding their own spice. In the end, no
> more than about a dozen people are actually authoring,
> rewriting, re-reporting, and trying to distribute this
> story. Those inclined to believe it simply post their own
> comments like "I suspected it all along."
>
> - The initial group now sees several hundred echoed news
> reports which are all sourced back either to their original
> reports, or the re-reports from the blogs and assorted
> aligned friends. They now claim the MSM is ignoring the
> "firestorm" of reports on the Internet about the story.
>
> - Typically at this point, right wing talk shows will start
> interviewing the less than half dozen people writing
> virtually all of these stories. The topic now morphs into
> "why is the liberal media ignoring the reporting on this
> issue." It also gives these people a chance to introduce
> some additional "spice," which serves as the nucleus for
> additional re-reports by people trying to keep the story
> alive. Many now source the story as coming from a radio or
> TV "station" or "news reports" in an attempt to get added
> "credibility" even though it actually aired on a talk show.
>
> - Rinse and repeat.
>
> Now people who actually think as part of their day can see
> through this very easily. A key to the right wing echo
> chamber is recognizing that while they loathe the MSM on one
> hand, they also yearn to gain its attention and "respect"
> for their stories. Folks who take a few minutes and make
> mental notes of the names involved are not surprised to see
> the same handful of people showing up with the same reports
> over and over again.
>
> Hell, we've seen it unfold in this very forum.
>
> They try to climb Mt. Credibility by noting the sheer
> quantity of reports, while ignoring where most originated
> and that they are simply repeated and re-repeated. Quantity
> doesn't equal quality. The risk to the telephone game
> "spicing" and "ginning-up" the story in the hands of third
> parties is that inevitably someone goes too far, as in
> comments that Mr. Franken and Mr. Cohen stole the money
> because "that's what Jews do."
>
> Further, when one actually reads most of it, the only
> credible parts turn out to come from their plagiarized
> regurgitation of newspaper reports, often quoted out of
> context or incompletely. Most of the rest is "unnamed
> sources say" type stuff which more often than not is the
> author's opinion masquerading as third party quotations.
>
> As far as "Pundit Review" goes, one only needs to look at
> their own blog to see just how much on an unbiased pundit
> review shop -they- are running:
>
> "It is too bad that these liberal know it alls are so
> ignorant of the facts, relating to President Bush, his
> genuine concern for the troops and the overall situation in
> Iraq. It makes me angry, even if they are starting to see
> the truth."
>
> "Newsflash to clueless liberals: We already knew this / So I
> head to The Huffington Post to see what the Hollywood
> crazies are up to. What I found was shocking, completely
> unexpected. It was a level headed, balanced analysis of
> President Bush and his treatment of our soldiers."
>
> "One thing has become clear in the month of August. While we
> continue to win on the ground in Iraq, we are losing the
> information war at home. On Pundit Review Radio last
> weekend, the incomparable Michael Yon's told us that the
> troops in Mosul have better morale than those of us here in
> the states. That is so scary, so sad, so dangerous."
>
> "One story fits the agenda perfectly, so they cover it
> relentlessly. In this case we are talking about Cindy
> Sheheen. The second story doesn't fit the MSM agenda so they
> choose to ignore it. We are of course speaking about the Air
> America financial scandal that has been kept alive only by
> the outstanding blog journalism of The Radio Equalizer Brian
> Maloney and Michelle Malkin."
>
> Sounds more to me like Pundit Review's agenda is showing.
>
