Credibility gap for MSNBC , who would have guessed..........

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advi...e-viewers-tuned-msnbc-181903650--finance.html

During a top line breaking news event folks are rivited to the television, BUT, not MSNBC. They dived as viewers left in droves to watch a real news channel.

 

What? You mean no one was watching when they said that James Holmes was a member of the tea party - except they had the wrong James Holmes.

 

I seriously doubt anyone at MSNBC is concerned with credibility...not the folks at the network and certainly not the viewing audience. The gas that's passed by the commentators there is nothing more than talking points & instructions for the radical left.

 

MSNBC is a news channel?

Truthfully, when something happens that is a breaking story, I tend to still go to cnn.

 

The political slant of the commentary on MSNBC is well known. I'll just point out that the one who mistakenly and prematurely claimed that the piece of feces was a Tea Party member was Brian Ross of ABC, not anybody on MSNBC. Unless you're aware of two talking heads that made the same mistake.

 

Recusant is correct.
ABC has twice identified shoters as Tea Party only to be twice embarrased.

MSNBC has only been caught selectivly editing cam shots, soundbites, and police 911 tapes several times...........

CBS got hit so bad in the credibility department that they had to fire lifelong anchor, Dan Rather, for KNOWINGLY pushing false " news "

CNN has really made an effort to become credible again and I appluad that. They were once the pillar of cable news, but by Baracks 2nd year, they got tired of carrying the water and started only hiding the water. These days they are pointing out the water the other "mainstream " outlets are carrying for the BO.
( Side note on CNN: I am glad that someone finally told Anderson Cooper that he was gay )

FOX discusts me because they are "rightwing" RINO lovin pushers of the very things I despise, " talking points". Fook Fox News and everybody that works there ( except Andrew Nopalitano ).

 

Yea, you are correct. I guess I am just so used to it being MSNBC.

 

http://mrctv.org/videos/liberal-medias-history-falsely-blaming-conservatives-massacres

 

Here is the irony or as Shakespeare would say, the rub. During rapidly evolving news stories, many “facts” nowadays get reported broadly as soon as one station reports them. If the "facts" turn out to be wrong, reputable news organizations retract them. Obviously ABC reported something and had to retract it. It happens.

Along comes the Right wing contingent of thieves and liars and while completely ignoring the fact that Fox so called news runs with innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies on a daily basis without ever retracting squat, they conclude that the “liberal” media must be equivalent or more precisely worse than Fox because they occasionally slip up and go with an unverified news story setting up another false equivalency to justify their own biases. So far, Fox is the only news organization that I know of that has stated in open court that they have the right under the First Amendment to mislead and lie to the public. And the world turns one more time.

 

Speaking of " runs with innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies on a daily basis without ever retracting squat" ........

 

As somebody who watches Fox News on a fairly regular basis, I think I'm qualified to disagree on the lack of retractions. If they get called on their lies by enough other sources, of even if one prominent source points out an example of their mendacity, they generally come on within 24 hours and play it off as "a mistake." I've seen this happen several times. I think that it's pretty obvious that their excuse is generally just another lie, but they do admit to "inaccuracy" if they get called on it. The thing is, it's such a regular occurrence that it's hard to accept as honest mistakes; they don't seem that incompetent to me. Instead they seem to be all too willing to bend the truth. Mr. Mencken's derisive statement regarding the intelligence of the American public seems justified, given the fact that Fox is "America's most trusted news source."

 

I watch FOX occasionally, and I catch quite a few of their "inaccuracies" when I do.

Today I had FOX on during part of Lou Dobbs show and caught a minor "inaccuracy", about the Keystone Pipeline (KP) project that failed to get approval. Lou was whining about China investing $14 billion into Canadian oil interests and made a comment about how the KP project would have provided fuel for America if it had been built. From what I understand of the KP project, the majority of the fuel was destined for European markets, not American.

While a fraction of the fuel may have found it's way into our market, as well as the varied byproducts of refining oil (the company and the government are vague about such details), to say to FOX viewers that the KP was destined for American usage is misleading, and I don't appreciate being mislead.

A minor inaccuracy? Possibly, but minor inaccuracies happen often when your job is more about pushing the agenda of a political group than providing your viewers with actual accurate information.

 

If you think the crude was to be exported to Europe, you are just plane wrong. And, BTW, a large reason for the diesel and gasoline being exported is the Jones Act. It is actually against the law to ship oil from the gulf to other American ports or even vice versa. That is federal law incidentally. Now there is a law designed to do only one thing (help American companies) and the side effect is to hurt all American industry. Big government at its best!

 

I like it when Fox or other Right-wingers call it "American oil". Well, maybe it is North American oil but the only part that we get to lay cliam to is the pollution that will result from refining it for the Canadians. How nice!

 

The primary purpose of the KP was to allow Canada to sell it's products to Latin America and European markets.

An alternate route (designed for China's interests) requires ships to navigate through Western Canada, bypassing America altogether.

ANYONE CLAIMING THE "CRUDE" WAS DESTINED FOR THE AMERICAN MARKET IS LYING.

Right-wing political hacks may believe otherwise, but they lie so much they believe themselves.

 

From a left wing source;

http://www.nationofchange.org/exporting-energy-security-keystone-xl-exposed-1314892904
NOTE: It goes to refiners to be refined. i.e., diesel, gasoline, not crude.
NOTE: It says "much of", not all of. NYC area is short of fuel. But it cannot be sent there. i.e. the Jones act. It has to be exported

Show me anywhere that states the crude is destined for foreign markets. Then show me anywhere where it can be shipped to anywhere else in the US. And spouting that it is not so does not make it not so.

 

BTW, if you truly believe in global warming, you should pray that the US refines it. If it gets refined in China, Mexico, Venezuela, etc. how much more pollution do you think will be release?

 

Even if 100% of all imported crude was for American usage, the price of fuel would not go down for Americans. Why? Greed. Refineries are in business for profit, and lower prices at the pump are not a profitable option. If demand goes down, refineries do not lower their prices... they lower production...even going "idle" until demand increases.

I will agree that crude oil is destined for American refineries, but with the understanding that the refined product created at those refineries is being sold to the "highest bidder" (so to speak).

The owners of TransCanada and the refineries will make a killing, profits-wise...they always do... but Americans would be stupid to expect those owners to not maximize profits like all good little capitalists do and sell to Asian, European, and Latin American markets.

That said, the company in question...TransCanada has attempted to mitigate environmental issues, in America especially, by rerouting the proposed lines, notably to avoid the Sand Hills.

Of course, they have also filed dozens of "Eminent Domain" actions (notably in Texas and South Dakota) and have reportedly harassed Canadian landowners to allow the line through their property.

 

Yep! They sure are greedy. They make 10¢ to 15¢ per gallon. They are robbing you blind. Oh, BTW, the governments are collecting over 50¢ per gallon. I wonder what name to call someone 4 times greedy. How about Obama?

 

Heheh, welcome back, IQless1. Masterful job of derailing this topic. I'll roll with it.

One piece of information that may be relevant is that Harper, the Conservative Canadian Prime Minister, recently said:

So there's that. Also, an interesting read may be found in "Pipe Dreams," A Report by Cornell University Global Labor Institute (PDF) which, while its main focus is on the proposed vs. likely actual impact on jobs in the US of the pipeline, does touch on the eventual actual destination of the oil.

I guess we can safely ignore the Cornell study though, because the institute that produced it has the word "Labor" in its name, and therefore must be "liberal."