MSNBC the "SPIN" zone

rosario143rosario143 Posts: 81Registered Users
A friend sent me this link today. After reading this I wondered how this lie is allowed to be perpetrated. But then this is from Msnbc the greatest spinners of all. But there were no "comments" on this board.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/

But found the same story on another board. Along with comments.
http://sexymike.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/01/2165792-bush-administration-ignored-clear-warnings

Some comments on article:
Duane-749429
It is interesting that you indicate Bush ignored the warnings, yet, you go on to discuss increased regulation that was put in effect in early 2007 (before the present fallout in the fall of 2008). Wasn't it the Bush administration that put these regulations into effect? I agree that this was too late (even though the current problems have really just become evident in fall 2008): But it was the democratic opposition to increased regulation (as proposed by Republicans) back in 2004 that prevented them from being implemented earlier. The democrats yelled and screamed as the Republicans dragged them to the table to discuss Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issues back then. There is audio of these hearings in which Republicans are concerned, but democrats repeatedly praise Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and try to condemn the Republicans for even forcing these hearings. Maxine Waters praised the "excellent leadership of Mr. Franklin Raines". Charles Rangel spoke about the excellent financial shape of these organizations, and castigated the Republicans for raising an issue. Separate from these hearings, Barney Frank (his "affordable housing" was code word for giving loans to people who couldn't afford them) repeatedly talked about the wonderful financial condition of these in response to Republicans cries for increased regulation due to irregularities. Yes, the Republicans deserve plenty of criticism, but primarily for letting the Democrats be an obstacle to early intervention. A more rigorous investigation reveals that some of these bad lending practices (or, at least the encouragement of such from the goverernment) have their roots in Jimmy Carter's and Bill Clinton's administrations. It is obvious that this article is written by someone who is incredibly biased or else simply ignorant.

Rich-281385
This article is beyond pathetic. It claims, for instance, that regulators eased rules, but no where in the article does it present a single fact to support this claim. What is does argue is that proposed rule "tightening" failed to occur. Worse, Bush (of course) is to blame, yet has anyone besides me watched the many volumes of YouTube clips showing democrat after democrat lambasting republicans and banking watchdogs for wanting to crack down on Fannie, Freddie, and the slush fund system dems were profitting from?

This article is more agitprop, and it's a shame. While the news media was wetting their collective pants over donations to the RNC going to pay for up to 150k in clothing for Sarah Palin, money that was VOLUNTARILY donated by the way, it has, and in this article continues, to ignore the trillions we have lost and will lose because reforms were rejected. By DEMOCRATS. The House passed out a reform bill. Democrats largely opposed it. The Senate, when under repub control, passed out of the Finance Committee a different reform bill. EVERY democrat voted no. And because repubs lacked 60 votes for cloture, the bill was killed. By DEMOCRATS. Yet the AP, and every other useless MSM organ, continues to fail to comprehend this story.

What is obvious is that the media loathes the marketplace. And had this been a marketplace many of these loans would never have been made, this crisis would never have happened, these trillions would not be lost, and the media could have focused on nothing but Sarah Palin's clothing allowance. The sad fact is that it was our "good intentions", wrapped up into the Community Reinvestment Act, as amended, and our willingness to ignore signs of risk while everyone was watching their net wealth grow, that caused this problem. Not Bush. People like JK Hayes simply don't get it.

pmcw
Wow, how did this guy get a degree in journalism. There are no clean slates in this mess, but it was the Democrats that pushed the CRA liberalization in 1999 and it was the Democrats that blocked Republican attempts to regulated Fannie and Freddie in 2004 and 2006. Here is a C-Span video of some of the hearing. Let's not be stupid and try to point fingers at only one party like this article does - the finger needs to point at both sides of the aisle in Washington.


pete-734820
the president could not swoop down to impose any restrictions, that is up to Congress to initiate, they didnt. And as far as the process and the blame game goes. Mortgage brokers dont get loans approved by underwriters unless the T has been crossed and the i has been dotted, underwriters cant approve loans unless they meet the standards required by the secondary market (Fannie and Freddie), Fannie and Freddie set the guidelines for the mortgage loans they will buy. So who is ultimately the blame, just back track and you will find those who wanted to make it easier for borrowers to get home loans no matter if they qualified or not. Lets name names, lets run the video clips, they get it out in the open, only you may not want to find out because that trail wont lead back to President Bush and thats why we will never get to the truth. Its OK to be a Liberal just dont be an ignorant one, thats what got us here in the first place

vance meyer
Your title is all I need. The president does not control banking. Congress controls banking, ie. Barney Frank, Christpher Dodd. etc. Acorn also pressed the bad loans. The author of this article does not care enough to have the facts. The goal is political not factual.


jt-749557
I keep hoping and waiting for the media to revert back to factual unbiased reporting now that the election is over. It appears that the end is nowhere in sight. To blame the current housing and credit situation on the Bush administration is incredibly narrow minded. For anyone who cares to take the time to look for it there is a very well written article in the NYT dated September 30, 1999 chastising President CLINTON and his administration for forcing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to adopt the lax underwriting guidelines that would eventually get us into this mess. Furthermore it was in fact President Bush and his administration that valiantly tried to get congress to force stronger guidelines. The Democratic congress refused..........and here we are. His only fault is that he didn't "stick to his guns" and get the American public involved to put more pressure on congress to make the necessary changes. Here, I'll make it easy for you.........

Jennfire
I have to add my 2 cents worth too, that this article is slanted, and the writer can not even bother to sign his name to it. I read a few weeks ago, how Bush had asked the Democrats to work with him to get some regulations done about this problem, and the Dems ignored him. We are all to blame, even if we are not involved, because we didn't do anything either, except watch house prices skyrocket out of sight, so no one could eventually afford anything. Especially here on the West Coast. And The nice small homes were torn down to build mega monsters, where you have to have hired help to help maintain them. This society is just too sick for words, and so is our Press!!!

Comments

  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Posting the article is one thing, but...why are you posting all those ridiculous biased comments?
  • rosario143rosario143 Posts: 81Registered Users
    The article is biased and I posted some of the answers as many people will not read the comments such as my friends. I didn't think the comments were nearly as biased as that article which is pure spin. How is MSNBC allowed to get away with that!
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    rosario143 wrote: »
    The article is biased and I posted some of the answers as many people will not read the comments such as my friends. I didn't think the comments were nearly as biased as that article which is pure spin. How is MSNBC allowed to get away with that!



    I fail to see the spin. Bush ignored warning signs about our financial system. Just as he ignored warnings about potential vulnerability along the Gulf coast (Katrina). Just as he ignored warnings about terrorist attacks (9/11). In short, he was a TOTAL F*CK UP as a president, and now he's trying to re-write history, saying "not me, I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time". MSNBC is calling him on it. The fault lies with the incumbent leader...the-buck-stops-here and all that....but Bush doesn't have the cojones to own up to any of it. For all his macho-cowboy-crap, he's really nothing but a big coward. He's not man enough to own up to anything. I find him deplorable as a human being. I don't know how anyone can even defend his administration. I really don't.
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    rosario143 wrote: »



    If he "knew", then why didn't he get that bill passed in 2003? He had Republican control of Congress until 2006. Pure bullsh*t, I say. He got what he cared about...his wars. That's all he wanted. That's all he tried to do. THAT'S his only contribution to America...useless unjust wars that we can't get out of.
  • SuburbanbushbabeSuburbanbushbabe Posts: 15,402Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    rosario143 wrote: »
    The article is biased and I posted some of the answers as many people will not read the comments such as my friends. I didn't think the comments were nearly as biased as that article which is pure spin. How is MSNBC allowed to get away with that!
    Oh please. This is an Associated Press feed. You can't blame this on MSNBC bias. Before you flame out all over the board, why don't you verify and do some minor research?
    My blog - http://suburbanbushbabe.wordpress.com/
    My FOTKI - http://whatsnew.fotki.com/suburbanbushbabe/
    comic-p.jpg

    Playing with my hair is a hobby. Fluffy, fine natural 4a. Goal= Healthy, beautiful hair that retains its length.
    Hear that crash? It's me falling off the CG wagon.
  • rosario143rosario143 Posts: 81Registered Users
    rosario143 wrote: »
    The article is biased and I posted some of the answers as many people will not read the comments such as my friends. I didn't think the comments were nearly as biased as that article which is pure spin. How is MSNBC allowed to get away with that!
    Oh please. This is an Associated Press feed. You can't blame this on MSNBC bias. Before you flame out all over the board, why don't you verify and do some minor research?

    This was the original link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,259Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    rosario143 wrote: »
    rosario143 wrote: »
    The article is biased and I posted some of the answers as many people will not read the comments such as my friends. I didn't think the comments were nearly as biased as that article which is pure spin. How is MSNBC allowed to get away with that!
    Oh please. This is an Associated Press feed. You can't blame this on MSNBC bias. Before you flame out all over the board, why don't you verify and do some minor research?

    This was the original link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/


    See the little thingy there, right above where the story starts...it looks like this:

    APTRANS.gif

    That means it's from the Associated Press. It's not an MSNBC originated story.
  • rosario143rosario143 Posts: 81Registered Users
    I understand that. But by posting an "editorial" on the top front page of their website MSN made it appear mighty newsworthy.
  • Myradella3Myradella3 Posts: 2,481Registered Users
    rosario143 wrote: »
    I understand that. But by posting an "editorial" on the top front page of their website MSN made it appear mighty newsworthy.

    Holdup. MSN or MSNBC? Aren't they different entities?
  • MichelleBFTMichelleBFT Posts: 4,812Registered Users
    All news websites put commentary and editorials on their main page. This is not something that only MSNBC does.

    You're grabbing at straws. Perhaps you'd garner a little more respect if you were willing to admit when you were wrong.
    "And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
    Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."
    Stolen.
  • rosario143rosario143 Posts: 81Registered Users
    All news websites put commentary and editorials on their main page. This is not something that only MSNBC does.

    You're grabbing at straws. Perhaps you'd garner a little more respect if you were willing to admit when you were wrong.


    Yes, I understand it was an AP article.Never said just MSNBC is the only one that does that. But it's there for a reason and many people look at it on a site such as MSNBC as fact and news. MSNBC put that article on top of the page with a big picture. I think there was an agenda.

    On the link of the website with the comments the article source says. "Article Source:MSNBC" on the top. So that can also be misleading to the readers. But at least they didn't post a BIG picture of Pres Bush .



    "http://sexymike.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/01/2165792-bush-administration-ignored-clear-warnings

    Michelle why are you always putting people down and telling them they're wrong? Or grabbing at straws. That seems to be your argument with everyone. Can't you just state your point without being personal or rude? This is an adult forum where people can discuss issues without insults. You seem to have a little anger and little patience for anyone who doesn't agree with you. Why?
  • CocoaCoilyCocoaCoily Posts: 2,648Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    I don't understand your beef here. Is it that MSNBC had an article on their site that you don't agree with? If that's it, you should take it up with the AP, since that is the source. Just because some blogger wrongly named MSNBC as the source, doesn't make it true. And the AP logo right above the article should cue in anyone with a bit of sense as to the source.

    So, a word of advice... Maybe change the title of this thread, so that you don't further perpetuate your ridiculous-leanings reputation.
  • rosario143rosario143 Posts: 81Registered Users
    Myradella3 wrote: »
    rosario143 wrote: »
    I understand that. But by posting an "editorial" on the top front page of their website MSN made it appear mighty newsworthy.

    Holdup. MSN or MSNBC? Aren't they different entities?



    Sorry. I meant MSNBC. It was late and I had just gotten back from many hours of shopping for a car.:occasion1:
  • rosario143rosario143 Posts: 81Registered Users
    CocoaCoily wrote: »
    I don't understand your beef here. Is it that MSNBC had an article on their site that you don't agree with? If that's it, you should take it up with the AP, since that is the source. Just because some blogger wrongly named MSNBC as the source, doesn't make it true. And the AP logo right above the article should cue in anyone with a bit of sense as to the source.

    So, a word of advice... Maybe change the title of this thread, so that you don't further perpetuate your ridiculous-leanings reputation.


    I understand MSNBC is not the source. But I do think they knowingly put that article up along with a VERY big picture of Bush at the very top so the article could not be missed. I think it is their responsibility if they are to be a reliable news source to check facts like that before they print on their website top front page.


    To put this article on their top front page,get a big picture of Bush with his "men" making him look imposing to add to the spice. Along with the article looks to me as they wanted their readers not to miss the article as they could have printed it as a small article at the bottom.


    If a "respectable" news source printed an article about Obama with unproven "facts" on top of their page with pictures to draw attention, I too would think they were trying to mislead their readers. And many here would also be upset. Whether or not the article happened to be from another news source is not the point. For a reliable news source to print it on their website big and bold is.

    The agenda is the same. To make their readers who believe they only print facts see the truth the way they want them to. People trust news, or articles or whatever you want to call them when they are from a reliable news source they respect.

    If people want to read fake news. They read articles from the Enquirer.

    I don't trust most of the news much anyway. But many people still do. And listen to mainstream media as gospel.
  • MichelleBFTMichelleBFT Posts: 4,812Registered Users
    rosario143 wrote: »
    All news websites put commentary and editorials on their main page. This is not something that only MSNBC does.

    You're grabbing at straws. Perhaps you'd garner a little more respect if you were willing to admit when you were wrong.


    Yes, I understand it was an AP article.Never said just MSNBC is the only one that does that. But it's there for a reason and many people look at it on a site such as MSNBC as fact and news. MSNBC put that article on top of the page with a big picture. I think there was an agenda.

    On the link of the website with the comments the article source says. "Article Source:MSNBC" on the top. So that can also be misleading to the readers. But at least they didn't post a BIG picture of Pres Bush .



    "http://sexymike.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/01/2165792-bush-administration-ignored-clear-warnings

    Michelle why are you always putting people down and telling them they're wrong? Or grabbing at straws. That seems to be your argument with everyone. Can't you just state your point without being personal or rude? This is an adult forum where people can discuss issues without insults. You seem to have a little anger and little patience for anyone who doesn't agree with you. Why?

    I am just fine with people who disagree with me who do so in a rational, factual way. That's not often what happens on the internet. That may sound arrogant or whatever, but it's the truth.

    Now, to address your other points: You spent the better part of this thread railing on MSNBC for what you viewed as a biased article. Your words were, "How is MSNBC allowed to get away with this?" after commenting on the level of bias in the article. The clear implication is that you believe MSNBC wrote and posted a biased article intentionally. There is absolutely no other way to interpret your first few posts.

    When it's pointed out to you that the article is a) commentary, not "news", b) from the AP and not an MSNBC originated article, and c) that pretty much every news outlet does precisely the same thing and that this being posted by MSNBC says absolutely nothing about MSNBC whatsoever... you say what? That posting it sends a message that MSNBC views it as newsworthy? Please, MSNBC posts things about Paris Hilton's love life, too.

    I'm not that mean, you just don't like what I have to say. That's fine, you don't have to. But I"m so ever loving sick of just about every conservative on this board whining about how mean I am when I'm really not. I disagree, and no, I don't sugar coat it, and yes, I employ a little sarcasm in it as well. Don't like it, then put me on ignore or stop posting things that are so easy to rail on.
    "And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
    Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."
    Stolen.
  • sew and sewsew and sew Posts: 3,443Registered Users
    When it's pointed out to you that the article is a) commentary, not "news", b) from the AP and not an MSNBC originated article, and c) that pretty much every news outlet does precisely the same thing and that this being posted by MSNBC says absolutely nothing about MSNBC whatsoever... you say what? That posting it sends a message that MSNBC views it as newsworthy? Please, MSNBC posts things about Paris Hilton's love life, too.

    There's a lot of stuff on the AP wire MSNBC could choose to publish, so I don't know why the fact it's an AP article is important. They didn't need their own writers being responsible for the piece before a possible bias in publishing it can be questioned. How the agency gate keeps is important enough in of itself. I don't at all mean to sound snotty, but as a journalism student, that was stressed by professors...so what I'm saying certainly isn't disputed...just always figured common sense would say as much.

    It's a good point that it's an editorial. But if it appears like a hard news story and is prominently advertised on the main page under "Economy in Turmoil"...obviously people will read it like it's hard news. I haven't even weighed the article's points yet...just saying. Do agree that if it's arguably a bias choice, MSNBC isn't alone. A left leaning bias does seem to be more visible with MSNBC than others though. Case in point

    Personally I just consider MSNBC that way by default...doesn't surprise me. If you're loyal to only one outlet, you'll absorb bias. I'll still read from MSNBC as well as Fox, no big deal. Question everything, that's the best we can do. If you care about an issue and really want to understand it, look into information from many sources. How information is disseminated, across the mass media board, even outside of political bias, is really lame. It's disappointing knowing what gets prominent coverage and what slips by with little attention. If it's arguably bias to the point of mininformation or misimplication, it's like one more blip on a radar screen that's smathered with other points of lameness.
    “It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald

    3B ■ Medium/Course ■ High Porosity
  • MichelleBFTMichelleBFT Posts: 4,812Registered Users
    I think the only way it could be argued that posting this article says anything about MSNBC specifically would be if absolutely no other mainstream news outlet picked it up.
    "And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
    Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."
    Stolen.
  • sew and sewsew and sew Posts: 3,443Registered Users
    That's a good point, but it depends on how the other outlets presented it. Was it on their main pages in prominence...the first attention grabber?

    Then, most importantly, IF there was actually misleading bias, the criticism of bias should apply to whoever picked it up, rather than justify any one use of it. The heavier the attention given, the more visible the bias, which I'm guessing is the OP's beef with MSNBC.
    “It was only a sunny smile and little it cost in the giving but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald

    3B ■ Medium/Course ■ High Porosity
  • yogawavesyogawaves Posts: 368Registered Users
    I hate msnbc, stopped watching it long ago!
    yogawaves, formerly known as yogagirl

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file