Wow, rating and commenting on books and films they have not seen?!
Isn't that lying and dishonest? Lying and dishonesty "is how we give our ideas a fighting chance"!
They don't get that having to lie about their ideas is proof that their ideas are stupid and/or insane?
I'd feel sad for them if they were not so destructive!
Stay away Tea Baggers! Lame brains....
Picking on the amateur night contestants again?
Better than being a sworn lawmaker or appointed DOJ official who hasn't bothered to read the entire contents of a proposed bill before voting on it or becoming an advocate for or against it. How do some of these people sleep at night?
Just today I was reading an analytical piece on Media Matters. Here is the link and three videos about how that outfit influences (or corrupts) media, with the third video specifically addressing internet searches.
http://patterico.com/2011/03/31/three-short-films-about-media-matters/
Quote from: Conan71 on March 30, 2011, 10:46:45 PM
Picking on the amateur night contestants again?
Better than being a sworn lawmaker or appointed DOJ official who hasn't bothered to read the entire contents of a proposed bill before voting on it or becoming an advocate for or against it. How do some of these people sleep at night?
Some sleep very well at night. Take this guy for example. ::)
I imagine Media matters gets more attention from the Far conservatives than from the Liberal side of things.
QuoteMisinformer of the Year
An annual feature on the Media Matters website is the title of "Misinformer of the Year," which is awarded to the journalist, commentator, and/or network which, in the opinion of Media Matters, was responsible for the most numerous and/or grievous factual errors and claims made.[15] They have been awarded almost every year since Media Matters started in 2004.
The recipients of this award have included:
Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (2004)
MSNBC's Chris Matthews (2005)
American Broadcasting Company (2006)
Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity (2008)
Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck (2009)
Fox News Channel's Sarah Palin (2010)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America)
I'd never even heard of them until now.
Quote from: Townsend on March 31, 2011, 02:51:27 PM
I imagine Media matters gets more attention from the Far conservatives than from the Liberal side of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America)
I'd never even heard of them until now.
You need to watch the third video at my link. As for Media Matters, I used to participate over there but they are so thoroughly unhinged and manipulative that I quit.
Quote from: Townsend on March 31, 2011, 02:51:27 PM
I imagine Media matters gets more attention from the Far conservatives than from the Liberal side of things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America)
I'd never even heard of them until now.
Something about MM triggered a memory and I did a little search and found these posts where you and I discussed this website and its content.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13299.msg128449#msg128449
Quote from: guido911 on March 31, 2011, 04:26:01 PM
You need to watch the third video at my link. As for Media Matters, I used to participate over there but they are so thoroughly unhinged and manipulative that I quit.
Hahhaha. The third video? You mean they hacked the google search algorithm that nobody knows what goes into it. That is the first clue this guy is full of crap. But I am sure being a liberal site that *gasp* they have negative stories on right wingers.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 31, 2011, 07:13:55 PM
Hahhaha. The third video? You mean they hacked the google search algorithm that nobody knows what goes into it. That is the first clue this guy is full of crap. But I am sure being a liberal site that *gasp* they have negative stories on right wingers.
I watched the video again and I nothing about hacked google algorithms. Where did you hear that? I thought he was talking about SEOs. I looked that up after I heard this video to get some background on SEOs. Here's one link I found, and this quote:
QuoteBelieve it or not, basic SEO is all about common sense and simplicity. The purpose of search engine optimization is to make a website as search engine friendly as possible. It's really not that difficult. SEO 101 doesn't require specialized knowledge of algorithms, programming or taxonomy but it does require a basic understanding of how search engines work.
[
Emphasis added]
http://www.searchengineguide.com/jim-hedger/seo-101-basic.php
Quote from: guido911 on March 31, 2011, 05:27:21 PM
Something about MM triggered a memory and I did a little search and found these posts where you and I discussed this website and its content.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13299.msg128449#msg128449
My mistake for not remembering.
I still think, though, the conservatives are probably more concerned about this site than their assumed audience.
Quote from: guido911 on March 31, 2011, 07:50:02 PM
I watched the video again and I nothing about hacked google algorithms. Where did you hear that? I thought he was talking about SEOs. I looked that up after I heard this video to get some background on SEOs. Here's one link I found, and this quote:
[Emphasis added]
http://www.searchengineguide.com/jim-hedger/seo-101-basic.php
http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/29/sanar-google-skyfacet-tech-cx_ag_0430googhell.html
Everybody uses SEO. There is no reason why every site can do the same thing. Nobody knows what really does what when it comes to SEO. Because it's ranked by an algorithm that nobody knows. To say a site is purposefully get to the front page of a google search is completely obvious. To act like it's a conspiracy is beyond stupid.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 31, 2011, 09:56:13 PM
http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/29/sanar-google-skyfacet-tech-cx_ag_0430googhell.html
Everybody uses SEO. There is no reason why every site can do the same thing. Nobody knows what really does what when it comes to SEO. Because it's ranked by an algorithm that nobody knows. To say a site is purposefully get to the front page of a google search is completely obvious. To act like it's a conspiracy is beyond stupid.
Sorry bub, you do not get off that easy. You accused Stranahan of being "full of crap" and you accused him of suggesting that MM was hacking google algorithms BS in order to discredit him. This is your back pedaling moment. And tell me about this alleged conspiracy in video 3.
Quote from: guido911 on March 31, 2011, 10:32:43 PM
Sorry bub, you do not get off that easy. You accused Stranahan of being "full of crap" and you accused him of suggesting that MM was hacking google algorithms BS in order to discredit him. This is your back pedaling moment. And tell me about this alleged conspiracy in video 3.
2:09 "Media matters has
made it so that shows up very high on the page ranking"
That implies that they know specifically how to game the google page rank system. Ohhh they use Search engine optimization. Internet magic that only one site can use. They would have to know more than all of the other websites in the world (with that keyword).
Quote from: Trogdor on March 31, 2011, 10:46:10 PM
2:09 "Media matters has made it so that shows up very high on the page ranking"
That implies that they know specifically how to game the google page rank system. Ohhh they use Search engine optimization. Internet magic that only one site can use. They would have to know more than all of the other websites in the world (with that keyword).
Oh I get it. MM conspired with
itself in trashing Stranahan. Interesting that it wasn't that "full of crap" author you started off with. And it wasn't just google if you listened to the original video. But please, keep doubling down.
Sometimes a healthy, "you know, I f'd up" is a good thing.
Quote from: guido911 on March 31, 2011, 11:06:29 PM
Oh I get it. MM conspired with itself in trashing Stranahan. Interesting that it wasn't that "full of crap" author you started off with. And it wasn't just google if you listened to the original video. But please, keep doubling down.
Sometimes a healthy, "you know, I f'd up" is a good thing.
Google,web crawler,altavista, yahoo,bing,ask Jeeves, wolfram alpha, AOL. Doesn't matter which search engine.
Is media matters running negative stories about right wing figures? Yes. I said that already. Right wing sites do the same thing. Do political sites use statements literally or change them to suit their needs? Yes . Is media matters a news site? No, it's a left wing editorial site. Your only new information you produced was that media matters has special page ranking powers unknown to all other sites on all search engines. If you had even a remote idea of what you were talking about. The story would be that search engines are giving them preferred page ranking based on their ideology. They are FORTUNATE enough to have a high page ranking. They didn't "make" it that way. The search algorithms did, which nobody knows what exactly goes into it.
I definitely preferred early Media Matters, before it got so editorial. In the beginning, it seemed to be more of a dry recitation of the falsehoods politicians and media figures were promoting or allowing to be promoted without question, as the case may have been. That was actually quite useful. An important civic service, IMO.
Public figures deserve to be called out when they say something that isn't true. Sometimes it may have been that they misspoke, but an organization like Media Matters makes it easy to point to a pattern of being untruthful if said public figure is indeed regularly untruthful.
Quote from: Trogdor on March 31, 2011, 11:28:49 PM
Google,web crawler,altavista, yahoo,bing,ask Jeeves, wolfram alpha, AOL. Doesn't matter which search engine.
Is media matters running negative stories about right wing figures? Yes. I said that already. Right wing sites do the same thing. Do political sites use statements literally or change them to suit their needs? Yes . Is media matters a news site? No, it's a left wing editorial site. Your only new information you produced was that media matters has special page ranking powers unknown to all other sites on all search engines. If you had even a remote idea of what you were talking about. The story would be that search engines are giving them preferred page ranking based on their ideology. They are FORTUNATE enough to have a high page ranking. They didn't "make" it that way. The search algorithms did, which nobody knows what exactly goes into it.
Whatever. ::) The movie guy is full of crap.
Exactly. Did you not notice he tries tie abortion with the funds they receive? Which would be illegal? Or the fact he says that the head of Planned Parenthood is wrong because she somehow claimed that ALL locations did mammograms? Obviously a non-smear site would note the fact that they do pap smears (which also scans for cancer). Or the fact that normally you don't get doctors referrals from doctors you don't pay. Though they could go to other free clinics which would also be defunded as a result of their attempts to take down planned parenthood. So yeah. He was completely biased. Unfortunately I don't know a site that offers an actual fair analysis. I do know that wouldn't be a site you would go to.
Quote from: Trogdor on April 01, 2011, 11:26:18 AM
Exactly. Did you not notice he tries tie abortion with the funds they receive? Which would be illegal? Or the fact he says that the head of Planned Parenthood is wrong because she somehow claimed that ALL locations did mammograms? Obviously a non-smear site would note the fact that they do pap smears (which also scans for cancer). Or the fact that normally you don't get doctors referrals from doctors you don't pay. Though they could go to other free clinics which would also be defunded as a result of their attempts to take down planned parenthood. So yeah. He was completely biased. Unfortunately I don't know a site that offers an actual fair analysis. I do know that wouldn't be a site you would go to.
You read WAY more into those videos than I did. This guy was reporting on another person's charge re: Planned Parenthood and MM response. He also reported on MM's response to Fox's Bill Sammon. Call him biased if you like, but your position from he's full of crap has certainly been back pedaled.
Also, did you read my link on SEOs? If you did, and MM is using these very simple and lawful means to get more hits, is he still full of crap for pointing this out?
Quote from: guido911 on April 01, 2011, 01:52:00 PM
You read WAY more into those videos than I did. This guy was reporting on another person's charge re: Planned Parenthood and MM response. He also reported on MM's response to Fox's Bill Sammon. Call him biased if you like, but your position from he's full of crap has certainly been back pedaled.
Also, did you read my link on SEOs? If you did, and MM is using these very simple and lawful means to get more hits, is he still full of crap for pointing this out?
SEOs are a pseudoscience. People have ideas of what works but nobody really knows. I think what MM has is original content that is repeated on multiple sites.
Arianna: The Huffington Post is not a 'lefty' publication anymore
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/01/arianna-huffington-post-is-not-a-lefty-publication/
No sh!t Sherlock....pissing and moaning about scripted issues makes real change possible. This is Ariana going back to her roots. Remember when Franken found her she was a reich wingnut. :)