________________________
And who else is associated with the Annenberg Foundation?
This guy:
Posted on 09/16/2008 11:52:54 AM PDT by VastRWCon
The reason I am asking because there is this guy at work that is telling everyone to go check out political rumors at factcheck.org because they are middle of the road.
In my experience, “middle of the road” = leftist
Broad Hint: They are associated with the Annenberg Foundation.
Does a bear use toilet paper in the woods?
Follow the money. They have to get funded from somewhere.
Not that I am aware of. Ha!
MRC (Media Research Center) would be an additional source.
No, it slants left and is run by a former Clintonite.
You tell me?
________________________
And who else is associated with the Annenberg Foundation?
This guy:
Their impartiality cannot be trusted - this cycle especially.
"Former Clintonites" are like Ron Brown and a whole list of people who are no more.
The Living Clintonites are not "former" they are still "Clintonites".
Why, this guy of course:
The fact that CNN relies upon them for their “journalism” should tell you something.
Yes, you are right. ;-)
Let me correct myself then. It is run by a Clintonite.
factcheck.org was founded by Kathleeh Hall Jamieson; the only political contribution I found was for the “Minnesota Women’s Campaign Fund” which supports pro-choice women candidates. That should tell you something about her politics.
I'll continue using them but with a grain of salt. There are no absolute sources of truth on the web except myself lol. By that I mean things with which I'm intimately acquainted in my real life as I tend to be as truthful as humanly possible and my memory holds, like my daughter stopped by around 11:30AM today; that is a fact :-)
My posts cannot be entirely relied upon because I do get things garbled and confused now and then and cannot follow every single issue out there. I usually try to post a link to a source where at least the skeletal facts are true, even those nasty, biassed MSM.
It's scary though just how much power there is to manipulate the news if someone would choose to do it. There are things happening behind the scenes that we as, ordinary citizens, aren't going to be able to get to the bottom of because we are stonewalled at every turn.
A case in point. The photo of Obama's alleged school register in Indonesia. I began to doubt if AP were the source. So I emailed them. I understood the delicacy of the matter, that if they were truthful, what might I use the information for? Would I post it here or further promulgate it in any way? I covered that possibility first in my request, then concluded maybe they could just notify me with a link pointing to a disclaimer on their website. I have yet to receive a response and doubt there will be one forthcoming. I suppose someone could write "Entertainment Tonight" where it allegedly appeared and ask them. I'm fed up with it. And have my suspicions why now, but will leave it at that.
Even if I don't support a candidate, if there are lies being spread about them and I come to believe they are lies through unknown, unanticipated, unimpeachable hah sources, that much of it I will defend unless proven otherwise. Most on the other side would not from what I'm seeing out there. Many seldom bother to check. Some on our side may be guilty of same. Some definitely aren't. And I have seen a very few things challenged on our oppositions' sites when I bother to see what they are talking about.
Snopes is way biased. Don’t let they “aligator in the sewer” stories they cribbed from Jan Brunvand lead you to believe that they are apolitical.
The political issues (abortion, war, etc., not just candidates) are where they go on their own and do “research” (or make excuses as they “theorize” about how maybe Hillary Clinton’s MOTHER lied to Hillary about the origin of her name).
They defend their articles by saying that the “framing synopsis” is what is true or false. So they twist the synopsis of the rumor so that they can give credence or denial to whatever issue they want.
I have to wonder how many of the “lies” told about Barack’s education were used to discredit the facts about his childhood education. The same way the Left took the parody photo of Kerry with Fonda out of context (and even cropped out the caption) to discredit the GENUINE photo of them seated near each other at a Vietnam War protest (and both were famous enough to be speaking at such events, whether one or both actually did speak at that rally).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.