GarfieldJL Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Newsbusters, has caught the AP at engaging with class warfare. Now this wouldn't be that big of a deal, except this involves 3 families with total of seven children none of whom older than nine years of age, dieing in a plane crash. Newsbusters has sourced the articles in question and I've had a look at those articles myself, and I have to say I'm disgusted but not particularly surprised. (Sorry if some of my spelling is off, I haven't had much sleep these last few days) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Ultrarich? Good job guy. But, while that was tactless, I also find slapping "but it was 7 children!" onto everything to be just as tasteless. The families of the deceased are probably having a hard enough time without the faces being posted online and throughout the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 24, 2009 Author Share Posted March 24, 2009 Ultrarich? Good job guy. But, while that was tactless, I also find slapping "but it was 7 children!" onto everything to be just as tasteless. The families of the deceased are probably having a hard enough time without the faces being posted online and throughout the news. They got the picture from a news source as well, Newsbusters covers how news organizations report things and/or what they choose not to report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 This is the one of the least newsworthy things I may have ever read about ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 24, 2009 Author Share Posted March 24, 2009 This is the one of the least newsworthy things I may have ever read about ever. It's how the AP covered the story that makes it newsworthy, class warfare anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Class warfare anyone? Simple comment blown out of proportion anyone? There are better things to bicker about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Yellowstone Club files for Bankruptcy on Nov 10, 2008. This is not the first time Matthew Brown has referred to this club as 'for the ultra-rich'. Why didn't Newsbusters make a stink about this back then? Because they're blowing this out of proportion to further more fearmongering from tin foil hat-wearing conservatives, that's why. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoxStar Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Because they're blowing this out of proportion to further more fearmongering from tin foil hat-wearing conservatives, that's why. Pathetic. Check and mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Because they're blowing this out of proportion to further more fearmongering from tin foil hat-wearing conservatives, that's why. Pathetic. ^I wanted to make sure everyone got this, in case you missed it the first two times. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On_Your_Six Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I'm sorry, there's no way someone who has defended O'Reilly's reporting can possibly jump to the next topic and comment on what is really despicable reporting. Especially when it's grounded in a made up semantical context. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 This is not the first time Matthew Brown has referred to this club as 'for the ultra-rich'. Why didn't Newsbusters make a stink about this back then? Because they're blowing this out of proportion to further more fearmongering from tin foil hat-wearing conservatives, that's why. Pathetic. People didn't die in the Club going bankrupt, the story Newsbusters is talking about did. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that fact is your problem. I'm sorry, there's no way someone who has defended O'Reilly's reporting can possibly jump to the next topic and comment on what is really despicable reporting. Especially when it's grounded in a made up semantical context. Carry on. Mr. O'Reilly doesn't go around bashing the recently departed dead, seriously can it with the derogatory comments... @ RoxStar You can argue about it being a check, but it was as sure as heck not mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On_Your_Six Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 You clearly don't watch his segments. And in no way was I ever derogatory there, friend. Though I would become highly derogatory with you if you continue to defend O'Reilly after watching this. Now, I'm kind of disappointed that alot of Sustren's (whom I hate anyways) has been annotated, but whatever, the point is clear. Worse yet, he was completely unapologetic about his words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 People didn't die in the Club going bankrupt, the story Newsbusters is talking about did. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that fact is your problem. It is not I who isn't acknowledging this fact, it's Newsbusters. Yes, people did not die in the Club going bankrupt, but Matthew Brown did refer to it as 'ultra-rich'. He also refers to it as 'ultra-rich' in this most recent story. So what? In the story you and your tinfoil hat cronies are getting your panties in a twist over, Matthew Brown simply repeated what he called the Yellowstone Club in a previous story. Given the fact that the Yellowstone club has an exclusive invite-only membership that includes some of the richest names in America like Bill Gates and Dan Quayle, the 'ultra-rich' qualifier is definitely warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Mr. O'Reilly doesn't go around bashing the recently departed dead, seriously can it with the derogatory comments... False. And I like listening to Bill O'. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 You clearly don't watch his segments. And in no way was I ever derogatory there, friend. Though I would become highly derogatory with you if you continue to defend O'Reilly after watching this. Now, I'm kind of disappointed that alot of Sustren's (whom I hate anyways) has been annotated, but whatever, the point is clear. Worse yet, he was completely unapologetic about his words. Wasn't someone from an NBC affiliate sued by John Gibson over a doctored video that ended up on youtube, seriously I watch O'Reilly rather frequently and he isn't nearly as bad as you say he is. @ Rogue Nine My problem is the fact he brought it up in a story where people died in a plane crash. Maybe you don't care because these people weren't living in a slum somewhere, but in my opinion they were people and you don't go trashing the recently departed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Wasn't someone from an NBC affiliate sued by John Gibson over a doctored video that ended up on youtube, seriously I watch O'Reilly rather frequently and he isn't nearly as bad as you say he is. How the **** is that relevant? That has nothing to do with this video, which is obvious in its point. Way to commit a Poisoning the Well Fallacy and completely negate your argument. @ Rogue Nine My problem is the fact he brought it up in a story where people died in a plane crash. Maybe you don't care because these people weren't living in a slum somewhere, but in my opinion they were people and you don't go trashing the recently departed. Did you watch the YT vid? _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 My problem is the fact he brought it up in a story where people died in a plane crash. Maybe you don't care because these people weren't living in a slum somewhere, but in my opinion they were people and you don't go trashing the recently departed. Please identify the language in the article that 'trashes' the recently departed family. You can't because there isn't any and you're just reading into a pair of words to encourage fearmongering and ridiculous political posturing. Nowhere in that article does it say 'haha, a bunch of rich people died, let's all laugh now.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 How the **** is that relevant? That has nothing to do with this video, which is obvious in its point. Way to commit a Poisoning the Well Fallacy and completely negate your argument. No, I'm asking who compiled the video. And quit swearing... Did you watch the YT vid? Yes, and I think there is some stuff missing that changes the context of what was said, now I'll need to look at it again from home, but that's my initial impression since I watched O'Reilly and Greta talk about that kid. @ Rogue Nine Then why did he bring it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Then why did he bring it up? Because he's called it that before? Because it's an accurate description of the Yellowstone Club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On_Your_Six Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yes, and I think there is some stuff missing that changes the context of what was said, now I'll need to look at it again from home, but that's my initial impression since I watched O'Reilly and Greta talk about that kid. No, absolutely nothing changes the fact that O'Reilly suggested that it must've have been fun enough not to go to school to remain with the kidnapper and suffer sodomy and various other abuses. Now, I'm sure you're not rushing out to get the unedited version of that clip to even make a fair statement, because you can't. You simply can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 No, absolutely nothing changes the fact that O'Reilly suggested that it must've have been fun enough not to go to school to remain with the kidnapper and suffer sodomy and various other abuses. Ever hear of sarcasm, Mr. O'Reilly uses it sometimes, that's something people who don't usually watch the Factor tend not to understand... The segment had to do with Shawn suffering from psychological abuse, and quite frankly there are other times Mr. O'Reilly points out what other people would argue (such as what you're claiming he was saying about Shawn). Now, I'm sure you're not rushing out to get the unedited version of that clip to even make a fair statement, because you can't. You simply can't. Since I didn't get home until after midnight, of course I didn't look for a tape online, I went to bed I have class you know... Because he's called it that before? Because it's an accurate description of the Yellowstone Club? If it was that big of an issue for him he could have left it out of the article because it wasn't relevant to the news story. It's an obituary for goodness sakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On_Your_Six Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Ever hear of sarcasm, Mr. O'Reilly uses it sometimes, that's something people who don't usually watch the Factor tend not to understand... So, that makes his reporting not despicable how? Amazing how you can take something so small from an AP article and blow it out into some inhuman tabloid garbage, and yet remain stubbornly blind to sources you respect. Seriously, you lost this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If it was that big of an issue for him he could have left it out of the article because it wasn't relevant to the news story. It's an obituary for goodness sakes. No, it's a news story. If it was an obituary, it would be in the obituary section. And again, Brown had established that the Yellowstone Club was an exclusive resort for rich people in a previous story, so it makes sense that he would mention its status in this story as well. It's really pathetic how conservatives latch on to those two little words and turn it into a whole uproar on 'class warfare'. Personally, I think this is more insulting to the families of the dead than the article was. Using their deaths as a platform for political pandering and frivolity. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This is the one of the least newsworthy things I may have ever read about ever.QFT Personally, I think this is more insulting to the families of the dead than the article was. Using their deaths as a platform for political pandering and frivolity. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves.Could not agree more. The very superficial study of journalism stresses the importance of who, what, when, where, why and how. Since most readers of Mr. Brown’s article are not privileged enough to be familiar with a club exclusive as the Yellowstone Club. The description of the club as “for the ultra-rich” clarifies the where in as few words as possible without talking away from the bulk of the story which is the who and the how, not the where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No, I'm asking who compiled the video. And quit swearing... No, I don't think so. The purpose of the language filter is to stop the actual words. I'm not circumventing the language filter, and I've been told before by mods that there is no rule against it. As long as I'm not cussing at a member in a way that constitutes flaming, I have every right to do so. So ****ing **** **** ****. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.