Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Wait, as the owner of a newspaper, you people expect me to inform you that I invested in the anti-Obama film 2016? Really? I gotta plead ignorance on this   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, obama, owners  
•       •       •

3364 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 6:37 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-24 07:56:46 PM  
it was in SD when i first came across the john birch society.
 
2012-10-24 08:18:27 PM  
/me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?
 
2012-10-24 08:19:04 PM  

cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how not informing is illegal or wrong or something?


Wasn't specific enough. Fixt
 
2012-10-24 08:29:34 PM  

cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?


Illegal? I dunno. Speaks volumes about the liberal media, though.
 
2012-10-24 08:33:28 PM  

cman: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how not informing is illegal or wrong or something?

Wasn't specific enough. Fixt


The only thing I wasn't a fan of was seeing that he owned 2 newspapers in the same market. I know it is legal now, but I still don't like it.
 
2012-10-24 08:33:42 PM  

cman: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how not informing is illegal or wrong or something?

Wasn't specific enough. Fixt


Well, in Italy you can get six years for not informing about earthquakes...
 
2012-10-24 08:34:22 PM  

cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?


Because freedom, frankly. It isn't the government's job to police the media, nor the viewpoints of a publication's owner.
 
2012-10-24 08:37:27 PM  

cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?


It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.

His paper published a review of 2016. A good review will put more butts in seats, which in turns puts more dollars in his pocket. Was the review truly objective, or was there undue influence to give it a better review than it deserved?

For example, when TIME magazine talks about how awesome the latest Batman movie is, they put a disclaimer that both TIME and Batman are owned by Time-Warner.
 
2012-10-24 08:40:13 PM  

Sgt Otter: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.

His paper published a review of 2016. A good review will put more butts in seats, which in turns puts more dollars in his pocket. Was the review truly objective, or was there undue influence to give it a better review than it deserved?

For example, when TIME magazine talks about how awesome the latest Batman movie is, they put a disclaimer that both TIME and Batman are owned by Time-Warner.


Ahh, Danke. I should have noticed that when I first read the article. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
 
2012-10-24 09:15:18 PM  

cman:

Ahh, Danke. I should have noticed that when I first read the article. Thank you for pointing it out to me.


Pretty much what he said. Journalistic ethics tends to require that you disclose all potential conflicts of interest. The man who bought these two newspapers, on the other hand, isn't even trying to pull a Richard Murdoch; he's outright said in interviews that he wants the newspapers to be conservative and to push his viewpoint. He said he bought them to spread his viewpoint. The people who worked their prior to the buyout have no real choice in it. So this story is about how the guy is even more unethical from a journalism standpoint than previously reported.
 
2012-10-24 09:43:44 PM  
The newspaper had 2 different reviewers for the film, one conservative and one democrat.

That is far more balanced than the NYT or most other papers do, so wtf is the problem?
 
2012-10-24 09:46:41 PM  

Sgt Otter: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.

His paper published a review of 2016. A good review will put more butts in seats, which in turns puts more dollars in his pocket. Was the review truly objective, or was there undue influence to give it a better review than it deserved?

For example, when TIME magazine talks about how awesome the latest Batman movie is, they put a disclaimer that both TIME and Batman are owned by Time-Warner.


You are wrong.
Here is a link to the Time Magazine review of the latest Batman movie.
No disclaimer.

Try again.
 
2012-10-24 09:51:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Sgt Otter: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.

His paper published a review of 2016. A good review will put more butts in seats, which in turns puts more dollars in his pocket. Was the review truly objective, or was there undue influence to give it a better review than it deserved?

For example, when TIME magazine talks about how awesome the latest Batman movie is, they put a disclaimer that both TIME and Batman are owned by Time-Warner.

You are wrong.
Here is a link to the Time Magazine review of the latest Batman movie.
No disclaimer.

Try again.


That review said DKR was better than the Avengers, so it is instantly lying by default.
 
2012-10-24 09:53:18 PM  

runujhkj: tenpoundsofcheese: Sgt Otter: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.

His paper published a review of 2016. A good review will put more butts in seats, which in turns puts more dollars in his pocket. Was the review truly objective, or was there undue influence to give it a better review than it deserved?

For example, when TIME magazine talks about how awesome the latest Batman movie is, they put a disclaimer that both TIME and Batman are owned by Time-Warner.

You are wrong.
Here is a link to the Time Magazine review of the latest Batman movie.
No disclaimer.

Try again.

That review said DKR was better than the Avengers, so it is instantly lying by default.


Which they obviously did in order to "put more butts in seats" because of evil capitalism and secret interlocking boards.
 
2012-10-24 10:03:12 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: runujhkj: tenpoundsofcheese: Sgt Otter: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.

His paper published a review of 2016. A good review will put more butts in seats, which in turns puts more dollars in his pocket. Was the review truly objective, or was there undue influence to give it a better review than it deserved?

For example, when TIME magazine talks about how awesome the latest Batman movie is, they put a disclaimer that both TIME and Batman are owned by Time-Warner.

You are wrong.
Here is a link to the Time Magazine review of the latest Batman movie.
No disclaimer.

Try again.

That review said DKR was better than the Avengers, so it is instantly lying by default.

Which they obviously did in order to "put more butts in seats" because of evil capitalism and secret interlocking boards.


Okay, well, I'm making a joke about a movie, and you seem to be soapboxing, so I don't think our conversations are compatible.
 
2012-10-24 10:07:28 PM  

runujhkj: tenpoundsofcheese: runujhkj: tenpoundsofcheese: Sgt Otter: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.

His paper published a review of 2016. A good review will put more butts in seats, which in turns puts more dollars in his pocket. Was the review truly objective, or was there undue influence to give it a better review than it deserved?

For example, when TIME magazine talks about how awesome the latest Batman movie is, they put a disclaimer that both TIME and Batman are owned by Time-Warner.

You are wrong.
Here is a link to the Time Magazine review of the latest Batman movie.
No disclaimer.

Try again.

That review said DKR was better than the Avengers, so it is instantly lying by default.

Which they obviously did in order to "put more butts in seats" because of evil capitalism and secret interlocking boards.

Okay, well, I'm making a joke about a movie, and you seem to be soapboxing, so I don't think our conversations are compatible.


actually I was trying to avoid the flamewar of saying that I thought DKR was better...(although not by much)
 
2012-10-24 10:11:33 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: actually I was trying to avoid the flamewar of saying that I thought DKR was better...(although not by much)


You are never reasonable. Never.

Fire your PR people.
 
2012-10-24 10:18:31 PM  

djkutch: tenpoundsofcheese: actually I was trying to avoid the flamewar of saying that I thought DKR was better...(although not by much)

You are never reasonable. Never.

Fire your PR people.


Obviously not, the guy thinks DKR was better than the Avengers. "Puny god," indeed.
 
2012-10-24 10:25:01 PM  
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-10-24 10:34:36 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: runujhkj: tenpoundsofcheese: runujhkj: tenpoundsofcheese: Sgt Otter: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.

His paper published a review of 2016. A good review will put more butts in seats, which in turns puts more dollars in his pocket. Was the review truly objective, or was there undue influence to give it a better review than it deserved?

For example, when TIME magazine talks about how awesome the latest Batman movie is, they put a disclaimer that both TIME and Batman are owned by Time-Warner.

You are wrong.
Here is a link to the Time Magazine review of the latest Batman movie.
No disclaimer.

Try again.

That review said DKR was better than the Avengers, so it is instantly lying by default.

Which they obviously did in order to "put more butts in seats" because of evil capitalism and secret interlocking boards.

Okay, well, I'm making a joke about a movie, and you seem to be soapboxing, so I don't think our conversations are compatible.

actually I was trying to avoid the flamewar of saying that I thought DKR was better...(although not by much)


Ok, I've seen you in the politics tab, and I've agreed to disagree on everything you've said, but THIS....THIS is unforgivable. Welcome to ignoretown, population, YOU!

/just kidding.
 
2012-10-24 10:55:38 PM  

runujhkj: (although not by much)


Completely qualified.
 
2012-10-24 10:59:41 PM  
This asshole also wants the city to shut down the Port of San Diego and turn it into a new publicly funded stadium for the Chargers.

/No.
 
2012-10-24 11:41:12 PM  

Rincewind53: cman:

Ahh, Danke. I should have noticed that when I first read the article. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

Pretty much what he said. Journalistic ethics tends to require that you disclose all potential conflicts of interest. The man who bought these two newspapers, on the other hand, isn't even trying to pull a Richard Murdoch; he's outright said in interviews that he wants the newspapers to be conservative and to push his viewpoint. He said he bought them to spread his viewpoint. The people who worked their prior to the buyout have no real choice in it. So this story is about how the guy is even more unethical from a journalism standpoint than previously reported.


Rupert Murdoch/Richard Mourdock
 
2012-10-25 12:41:45 AM  
Wonder if he shortened the name of the paper just because it had the word "union" in it.
 
2012-10-25 01:13:17 AM  
Donald Graham, the chairman of the Washington Post gives $25k annually to help fund the Bilderberg Group meeting, but you'll never see the Washington Post disclose that, much less try to cover anything that goes on there.
 
2012-10-25 01:17:45 AM  
I loved that review of the pro-Bilderberg movie in the Washington Post.
 
2012-10-25 01:24:46 AM  

propasaurus: I loved that review of the pro-Bilderberg movie in the Washington Post.


London Guardian has four different members of the Marriott hotel staff on record saying they saw Romney attend the meeting in Chantilly VA, which was a significant news item and the WP ignored it almost certainly because their boss gagged them. You telling me that's not as big a journalistic deal as a movie review?
 
2012-10-25 01:39:34 AM  

Triumph: propasaurus: I loved that review of the pro-Bilderberg movie in the Washington Post.

London Guardian has four different members of the Marriott hotel staff on record saying they saw Romney attend the meeting in Chantilly VA, which was a significant news item and the WP ignored it almost certainly because their boss gagged them. You telling me that's not as big a journalistic deal as a movie review?


Do you have any proof that it was buried? And the the speech at Chantilly wasn't a story for a month. It was reported when the speech was first given, and had absolutely zero effect in any paper until the video came out, which was a blog story.
 
2012-10-25 02:09:46 AM  

GAT_00: Do you have any proof that it was buried?


No - I'm obviously not privy to the WP's private editorial meetings, but boss Graham thinks the BB meeting's so important he funds it, so if it's that important, why not cover it?. On the 2009 tax return, the Washington Post was the biggest donor along with Goldman Sachs. The Prince of Belgium, Queen of the Netherlands and other participants alone make it a newsworthy event. It's a four-day meeting. How many other events a year do these people clear four days on their schedules?
 
2012-10-25 03:02:52 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: actually I was trying to avoid the flamewar


cache.ohinternet.com
 
2012-10-25 04:42:45 AM  

propasaurus: Rincewind53: cman:

Ahh, Danke. I should have noticed that when I first read the article. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

Pretty much what he said. Journalistic ethics tends to require that you disclose all potential conflicts of interest. The man who bought these two newspapers, on the other hand, isn't even trying to pull a Richard Murdoch; he's outright said in interviews that he wants the newspapers to be conservative and to push his viewpoint. He said he bought them to spread his viewpoint. The people who worked their prior to the buyout have no real choice in it. So this story is about how the guy is even more unethical from a journalism standpoint than previously reported.

Rupert Murdoch/Richard Mourdock


Murdoch / Mourdock
douchebag / douchenozzle
asshole / asshat
dickbag / dickhead

...all these terms are easily confused
 
2012-10-25 06:42:34 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: propasaurus: Rincewind53: cman:


Rupert Murdoch/Richard Mourdock

Murdoch / Mourdock
douchebag / douchenozzle
asshole / asshat
dickbag / dickhead

...all these terms are easily confused


Obama/Osama. Those two are easy to confuse, too. Both hate America.

OTOH, the story here is no big deal at all. It's a documentary, the same as many others that have been made over the last century.
 
2012-10-25 06:46:15 AM  
fta: By comparison, the newspaper has only run two short wire stories covering the recent news that D'Souza had to step down as head of The King's College after being caught traveling with another woman, who he referred to as his fiancee, despite being married. D'Souza later said he was not aware that Christianity precluded people from being engaged while stitll married.

Typo aside, wait, what?

Was there a thread on this? Did I miss it? I always miss the really good ones.
 
2012-10-25 06:52:07 AM  

quatchi: fta: By comparison, the newspaper has only run two short wire stories covering the recent news that D'Souza had to step down as head of The King's College after being caught traveling with another woman, who he referred to as his fiancee, despite being married. D'Souza later said he was not aware that Christianity precluded people from being engaged while stitll married.

Typo aside, wait, what?

Was there a thread on this? Did I miss it? I always miss the really good ones.


Uh, yeah, I didn't read a word about that.
 
2012-10-25 06:53:40 AM  
"...D'Souza later said he was not aware that Christianity precluded people from being engaged while stitll married."

If you don't know this, then I can't imagine finding credibility in much of anything you have to say, nevermind your conspiracy theories.
 
2012-10-25 06:56:49 AM  

Alphax: quatchi: fta: By comparison, the newspaper has only run two short wire stories covering the recent news that D'Souza had to step down as head of The King's College after being caught traveling with another woman, who he referred to as his fiancee, despite being married. D'Souza later said he was not aware that Christianity precluded people from being engaged while stitll married.

Typo aside, wait, what?

Was there a thread on this? Did I miss it? I always miss the really good ones.

Uh, yeah, I didn't read a word about that.


Thread (now closed)

Additional article
 
2012-10-25 07:06:09 AM  

shotglasss: OTOH, the story here is no big deal at all. It's a documentary, the same as many others that have been made over the last century.


I feel the same way about "The Triumph of the Will".

ROMNEY/RIEFENSTAHL 2012
 
2012-10-25 07:06:30 AM  
BUT... LIHBRUL MEDIAS!!!!
 
2012-10-25 07:07:18 AM  

shotglasss: Lionel Mandrake: propasaurus: Rincewind53: cman:


Rupert Murdoch/Richard Mourdock

Murdoch / Mourdock
douchebag / douchenozzle
asshole / asshat
dickbag / dickhead

...all these terms are easily confused

Obama/Osama. Those two are easy to confuse, too. Both hate America.

OTOH, the story here is no big deal at all. It's a documentary, the same as many others that have been made over the last century.


How many "documentaries" have been made specifically to bash sitting Presidents? Sure, there are a few made after the President has left office, but I think this one is a first.

Before the bashing starts, I have in fact seen the movie. It's idiotic. The first third of the movie is more about the guy who made it than it is about Obama. The Obama part starts out with how his whole worldview was shaped by his father (who he only knew for about a month), and then segues into how Obama is supposedly some kind of Muslim sleeper agent trained by his mother. After that, the movie degenerates even further into pure derp, including an interview with Obama's half-brother. The interviewer doesn't get the answers he wants, so he starts answering his own questions while ignoring the protests of the half-brother.

I thought I knew what I was getting into by watching that movie, but I was wrong by an order of magnitude.
 
2012-10-25 07:11:25 AM  
published an editorial naming Obama the "Worst President of All-Time."

Just wait until Romney loses to the "Worst President of All-Time." The GOP will utterly collapse into disorder. There will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.

And I will laugh my hearty laugh.
 
2012-10-25 07:15:35 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The newspaper had 2 different reviewers for the film, one conservative and one democrat.

That is far more balanced than the NYT or most other papers do, so wtf is the problem?


No one wants to hear about balance from someone who can't seem to spell the president's name without a zero and who uses "democrat" as an adjective like Joe McCarthy did. You know so little about balance, I very much doubt you can stand up.
 
2012-10-25 07:15:48 AM  
Breaking news: Another Republican shiat heel caught being a shiat heel. News at 11.
 
2012-10-25 07:22:18 AM  

vartian: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

Because freedom, frankly. It isn't the government's job to police the media, nor the viewpoints of a publication's owner.


Yeah, the only question might be about having a monopoly in the market, but I don't think he owns any tv or radio stations, and there are probably small indie papers in San Diego, so it's not much of an argument.

It's still pretty damn unethical.
 
2012-10-25 07:23:09 AM  

Jgok: Before the bashing starts, I have in fact seen the movie. It's idiotic. The first third of the movie is more about the guy who made it than it is about Obama. The Obama part starts out with how his whole worldview was shaped by his father (who he only knew for about a month), and then segues into how Obama is supposedly some kind of Muslim sleeper agent trained by his mother. After that, the movie degenerates even further into pure derp, including an interview with Obama's half-brother. The interviewer doesn't get the answers he wants, so he starts answering his own questions while ignoring the protests of the half-brother.

I thought I knew what I was getting into by watching that movie, but I was wrong by an order of magnitude.


A woman in my office loved it. Ranked for ten minutes about it exposing all the communism in Obama's life and how he's a communist and he's communising the nation.
 
2012-10-25 07:29:44 AM  

Parthenogenetic: Alphax: quatchi: fta: By comparison, the newspaper has only run two short wire stories covering the recent news that D'Souza had to step down as head of The King's College after being caught traveling with another woman, who he referred to as his fiancee, despite being married. D'Souza later said he was not aware that Christianity precluded people from being engaged while stitll married.

Typo aside, wait, what?

Was there a thread on this? Did I miss it? I always miss the really good ones.

Uh, yeah, I didn't read a word about that.

Thread (now closed)

Additional article


Oh my, that *was* farking hilarious.

So basically Deloser lost his perch atop Crown College after local gossips made hay outta the fact that he took his mistress/finance with him to a conference on Family Values. Fark has a thread on it and the troll apology team that shows up tries to minimize it by pointing out that he had been separated from his wife for two years while somehow overlooking the fact that his fiance/mistress was also married to someone else at the time.

It's like a French farce with puritanical elements. TY for linkages.
 
2012-10-25 07:31:00 AM  

Jgok: shotglasss: Lionel Mandrake: propasaurus: Rincewind53: cman:


Rupert Murdoch/Richard Mourdock

Murdoch / Mourdock
douchebag / douchenozzle
asshole / asshat
dickbag / dickhead

...all these terms are easily confused

Obama/Osama. Those two are easy to confuse, too. Both hate America.

OTOH, the story here is no big deal at all. It's a documentary, the same as many others that have been made over the last century.

How many "documentaries" have been made specifically to bash sitting Presidents? Sure, there are a few made after the President has left office, but I think this one is a first.


Actually, farenheight 9/11 by michael moore was released in an attempt to discredit Bush and make him lose re-election. Just consider this anti obama film the teahadist version of moore's film, although from your description it sounds like it takes even more liberal use of the available facts. No pun intended.
 
2012-10-25 07:35:32 AM  

Jgok: How many "documentaries" have been made specifically to bash sitting Presidents? Sure, there are a few made after the President has left office, but I think this one is a first.

Before the bashing starts, I have in fact seen the movie. It's idiotic. The first third of the movie is more about the guy who made it than it is about Obama. The Obama part starts out with how his whole worldview was shaped by his father (who he only knew for about a month), and then segues into how Obama is supposedly some kind of Muslim sleeper agent trained by his mother. After that, the movie degenerates even further into pure derp, including an interview with Obama's half-brother. The interviewer doesn't get the answers he wants, so he starts answering his own questions while ignoring the protests of the half-brother.

I thought I knew what I was getting into by watching that movie, but I was wrong by an order of magnitude.


Yeah, it's farking sophomoric garbage from a mediocre mind... A friend of mine hounded me about it until I finally watched it. According to him, it was supposed to make me change the way I thought about Obama and realize I shouldn't vote for him...

After watching it, I told him I now wish I could vote twice for Obama. Once because I agree with many of his policies and the second time purely out of spite for having to sit through that piece of shiat of a "documentary". : )
 
2012-10-25 07:41:36 AM  

Sgt Otter: cman: /me scratches his head

Can anyone explain to a moran like me how this is illegal or wrong or something?

It's usually considered unethical to not disclose that you're publishing something that could potentially financially impact your other assets.


Kind of like how FactCheck and Snopes do?

Oh...wait...
 
2012-10-25 07:58:08 AM  
D'Souza later said he was not aware that Christianity precluded people from being engaged while stitll married.

These people just openly troll the morons that give them money.
 
2012-10-25 07:58:39 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The newspaper had 2 different reviewers for the film, one conservative and one democrat.

That is far more balanced than the NYT or most other papers do, so wtf is the problem?


Have you ever actually read the Times op-ed pages? There is a healthy balance of viewpoints. But you wouldn't know that, having been told otherwise by people who push the same bias you rail against.

And I'm guessing you forgot about how the NYT was at the forefront when it came to banging the drums for the Iraq invasion. You likely have forgotten that the Bush administration had a paid troll on their op-ed staff as well, specifically regarding No Child Left Behind. Google both of these things, because you're not worth linking for.

You either need to get your sh*t straight before you post, or retire this shill account. Because frankly it's just sad. You don't make me angry - I genuinely pity you.

/fool
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report