debunking misleading political stories
March 3, 2009 2:27 PM Subscribe
I'm trying to find a blog (or several) that follow and debunk stories that often come from popular right-wing talk radio and tv hosts. E.g. someone who follows and debunks stories from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and friends.
I have a friend who watches and listens to these shows. On a regular (almost daily) basis he gets outraged, shouting "do you know what (whoever) said they are going to do!?!?!?!" He wants me to be outraged and agree with him but of course I don't think that what he heard is true and so far my record in debunking these outrages is 100%. I google and search until I can find the story, the go to Snopes and FactCheck and various other sites to see if I can get to the truth of the matter. A few weeks ago I debunked Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts at Factcheck.org.
It would be really great time saver to find a resource that debunks these as they appear, and I can just follow that resource and be ready when my friend falls for another of these distortions.
I can't just not talk to this friend about these topics, or avoid the friend - we work together.
If you feel that Limbaugh or Hannity is "telling it like it is" - more power to you. I really don't want this thread to be about whose political opinions are right - I'm just trying to find sites that provide the counter arguments to the things Limbaugh and Hannity are outraged about. If you want to start a political thread to discuss it, be my guest but please don't hijack my question. KTHXBY
I have a friend who watches and listens to these shows. On a regular (almost daily) basis he gets outraged, shouting "do you know what (whoever) said they are going to do!?!?!?!" He wants me to be outraged and agree with him but of course I don't think that what he heard is true and so far my record in debunking these outrages is 100%. I google and search until I can find the story, the go to Snopes and FactCheck and various other sites to see if I can get to the truth of the matter. A few weeks ago I debunked Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts at Factcheck.org.
It would be really great time saver to find a resource that debunks these as they appear, and I can just follow that resource and be ready when my friend falls for another of these distortions.
I can't just not talk to this friend about these topics, or avoid the friend - we work together.
If you feel that Limbaugh or Hannity is "telling it like it is" - more power to you. I really don't want this thread to be about whose political opinions are right - I'm just trying to find sites that provide the counter arguments to the things Limbaugh and Hannity are outraged about. If you want to start a political thread to discuss it, be my guest but please don't hijack my question. KTHXBY
Yeah, this is exactly why Media Matters was created. In fact, they have hired some of the individual bloggers who used to do this kind of stuff independently.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 3:05 PM on March 3, 2009
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 3:05 PM on March 3, 2009
FAIR has a long-time vendetta against Rush. Based on this list, their ire may have cooled in the last few years though.
posted by serazin at 3:54 PM on March 3, 2009
posted by serazin at 3:54 PM on March 3, 2009
Before you jump deep into debunking stories that you assume are coming from radio talk show hosts (or any media figure for that matter), I would strongly suggest you invest a bit of time actually listening/watching them. Many times, what they say gets seriously twisted, exaggerated, or interpreted into something totally false and off base.
posted by cloudsandstars at 4:58 PM on March 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cloudsandstars at 4:58 PM on March 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
During the election factcheck.org was a great place for fair analysis and they're still doing some great work. I think Media Matters, which has been mentioned a few times upthread is also another good one.
I'd also suggest browsing around the Annenberg Public Policy Center's website. Not exactly what you were asking for, but a great site for media awareness nonetheless.
posted by tylerfulltilt at 5:26 PM on March 3, 2009
I'd also suggest browsing around the Annenberg Public Policy Center's website. Not exactly what you were asking for, but a great site for media awareness nonetheless.
posted by tylerfulltilt at 5:26 PM on March 3, 2009
Before you jump deep into debunking stories that you assume are coming from radio talk show hosts (or any media figure for that matter), I would strongly suggest you invest a bit of time actually listening/watching them. Many times, what they say gets seriously twisted, exaggerated, or interpreted into something totally false and off base.
Yes, of course we agree with you. But the warping, twisting, and exaggerating you speak of is exactly how Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc. operate. Very little that comes from their ilk could be considered "truth" or "fact-based." That so many people out there can't see through their nonsense bullshit continues to astonish me, even after almost two decades of listening.
If you want proof of the matter, I could tell you about the many times I was in Rush's NYC office space working on his computers and how I saw their operation up-close. It's no great secret, but it opened my eyes a bit. Rush gets the vast majority of this information from his large listening audience, who endlessly email, fax, and snail mail him anything...and I mean anything...they think might somehow be used by Rush to further their cause. It's amazing really, to have caught some glimpses of the disturbed fantasies and conspiracy theories sent in by Rush's audience. Sociologists would be fascinated by the treasure trove of manifestos in Rush's office. His staff sorts and chucks and picks out the most useful tidbits and even writes up most of what Rush says on the air. In fact, when Rush ad-libs or goes off-script is when most of his biggests gaffes have been made.
Look, Rush, Hannity, etc. are entertainers. They are not "great thinkers" or even leaders. To their credit, they know they are entertainers and have, at times, lifted the curtain and said as much interviews. Debunking their stories isn't difficult, but it's probably mostly futile. I've been convinced for some time that the majority (not all, of course) people who partake of that particular brand of entertainment are simply incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. They just don't possess the capacity to think objectively or critically, whether because of their upbringing, religious beliefs, environment, or whatever. Convincing the average Rush Limbaugh listener that Rush's MO is entertainment and sensationalism first, and truth/facts last is a lost cause. Presented with cold hard facts and irrefutable truth, they'll choose to disbelieve or ignore the evidence directly in front of their faces. I've seen it happen, even to my friends and relatives.
But, hey, what do I know, I'm just a "liberal, East Coast, Volvo-driving, socialist, welfare-collecting, elitist, godless heathen." Sigh.
posted by mrbarrett.com at 8:55 PM on March 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes, of course we agree with you. But the warping, twisting, and exaggerating you speak of is exactly how Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc. operate. Very little that comes from their ilk could be considered "truth" or "fact-based." That so many people out there can't see through their nonsense bullshit continues to astonish me, even after almost two decades of listening.
If you want proof of the matter, I could tell you about the many times I was in Rush's NYC office space working on his computers and how I saw their operation up-close. It's no great secret, but it opened my eyes a bit. Rush gets the vast majority of this information from his large listening audience, who endlessly email, fax, and snail mail him anything...and I mean anything...they think might somehow be used by Rush to further their cause. It's amazing really, to have caught some glimpses of the disturbed fantasies and conspiracy theories sent in by Rush's audience. Sociologists would be fascinated by the treasure trove of manifestos in Rush's office. His staff sorts and chucks and picks out the most useful tidbits and even writes up most of what Rush says on the air. In fact, when Rush ad-libs or goes off-script is when most of his biggests gaffes have been made.
Look, Rush, Hannity, etc. are entertainers. They are not "great thinkers" or even leaders. To their credit, they know they are entertainers and have, at times, lifted the curtain and said as much interviews. Debunking their stories isn't difficult, but it's probably mostly futile. I've been convinced for some time that the majority (not all, of course) people who partake of that particular brand of entertainment are simply incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. They just don't possess the capacity to think objectively or critically, whether because of their upbringing, religious beliefs, environment, or whatever. Convincing the average Rush Limbaugh listener that Rush's MO is entertainment and sensationalism first, and truth/facts last is a lost cause. Presented with cold hard facts and irrefutable truth, they'll choose to disbelieve or ignore the evidence directly in front of their faces. I've seen it happen, even to my friends and relatives.
But, hey, what do I know, I'm just a "liberal, East Coast, Volvo-driving, socialist, welfare-collecting, elitist, godless heathen." Sigh.
posted by mrbarrett.com at 8:55 PM on March 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Look, Rush, Hannity, etc. are entertainers. They are not "great thinkers" or even leaders. To their credit, they know they are entertainers and have, at times, lifted the curtain and said as much interviews.
I believe here "entertainer" is a deliberately mistaken gloss for "demagogue". One doesn't need to be a formal leader to be one.
That is, Limbaugh would much rather retreat to the safety zone of "entertainer" as an all-purpose excuse for joking about Chelsea Clinton's parentage, for example, rather than take any sort of responsibility.
Anyway, the other major professional place to find debunkings is ThinkProgress. Other bloggers that regularly ... engage ... with Limbaugh in a substantive sense include Glenn Greenwald, Digby, and Andrew Sullivan. John Cole is an ex-Republican who regularly shakes his head at what he sees in the right wing media. Crooks and Liars concentrates on stuff with video or audio clips. After that -- what? Alternet? DKos? HuffPo? There are plenty of places that give the folks you list attention.
posted by dhartung at 11:23 PM on March 3, 2009
I believe here "entertainer" is a deliberately mistaken gloss for "demagogue". One doesn't need to be a formal leader to be one.
That is, Limbaugh would much rather retreat to the safety zone of "entertainer" as an all-purpose excuse for joking about Chelsea Clinton's parentage, for example, rather than take any sort of responsibility.
Anyway, the other major professional place to find debunkings is ThinkProgress. Other bloggers that regularly ... engage ... with Limbaugh in a substantive sense include Glenn Greenwald, Digby, and Andrew Sullivan. John Cole is an ex-Republican who regularly shakes his head at what he sees in the right wing media. Crooks and Liars concentrates on stuff with video or audio clips. After that -- what? Alternet? DKos? HuffPo? There are plenty of places that give the folks you list attention.
posted by dhartung at 11:23 PM on March 3, 2009
Look, Rush, Hannity, etc. are entertainers. They are not "great thinkers" or even leaders. To their credit, they know they are entertainers and have, at times, lifted the curtain and said as much interviews.
This is false. Rush, Hannity and BillO ARE the leadership of the Republican party. For example: Rush just gave the keynote at CPAC and forced RNC chairman Micheal Steele to issue a humiliating public apology. Rush et. al. are the heart, soul, brain and driving force behind the modern Republican party. Whatever former pretenses they had as entertainers ceased when actual elected officials began caving to their every deranged demand.
Also, I would add My Direct Democracy and Scott Horton at Harpers.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:08 PM on March 4, 2009
This is false. Rush, Hannity and BillO ARE the leadership of the Republican party. For example: Rush just gave the keynote at CPAC and forced RNC chairman Micheal Steele to issue a humiliating public apology. Rush et. al. are the heart, soul, brain and driving force behind the modern Republican party. Whatever former pretenses they had as entertainers ceased when actual elected officials began caving to their every deranged demand.
Also, I would add My Direct Democracy and Scott Horton at Harpers.
posted by T.D. Strange at 1:08 PM on March 4, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by bradbane at 2:28 PM on March 3, 2009 [1 favorite]