Can you tell the difference between the Conservative propaganda in the Media and the truth?

Answer 1

This is why I watch Fox News, they will always show both sides. Their goal is to let the viewer decide unfortunately there are some that don't want people getting both side's.

Answer 2

the comparable conservatives who accuse mainstream u.s. of blindly believing each and every thing the liberal media places out are the comparable conservatives who blindly have self assurance each and every thing that Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox information places out. it somewhat works the two approaches. And this is develop into practically impossible to discover a real non-partisan information source.

Answer 3

The thing about the Conservative machine is that they're very good at injecting their talking points into the conversation at every level. I will give them that. Terms like, "flip flop," or "cut and run," or "tax and spend" work their way into water cooler discussions every day.

Most people didn't know who Gerry Studds even was until Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh brought him up after the Mark Foley incident. (They couldn't even decide on how to pronounce his first name.)

Never mind that they never brought up Republican Congressman Dan Crane, who got in trouble for the same thing as Studds at the same time.

It seems to me that lately the Conservative spin machine tactics are pretty much, "Blame Clinton," or "Look, the Liberals do it too!"

I was listening to Hannity yesterday, and he even laid blame at Jimmy Carter's feet for things that are going on in the world today.

I mean, come on.

Answer 4

Yes

Answer 5

There is no real truth in the media. Not Conservative or Liberal.

Go find an overseas news source. They are less wrong with thier meda coverage.

Answer 6

most of what a conservative can say in the media has been slaughtered by the liberals anyway, so who can really trust it.

Answer 7

Say it seven times and it becomes the truth.

Answer 8

the truth..............."Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism. They almost wrote the book, and I've read the books that have been written. Iraq under Saddam was an active sponsor of terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, logistical support -- requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment, or training facilities, or freely use Iraqi territory under the regime's control without explicit permission from Saddam.
Saddam used foreign terrorist groups and terrorism as instruments of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection. If he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encourage to attack the same countries when Saddam wanted to pressure them. If they refused Saddam's requests, they were exiled. Now, conventional wisdom casts Saddam as a terrorist, a primary consumer of the terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. And that is all true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism, and that is all true. If the mathematics is correct, then the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq are responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, going back to the 1993 Trade Towers attack to perhaps 9/11.
He used terrorism to intimidate Iraqis at home and abroad, and he did that, as we all know, very well.
And you know what's interesting, because we have seen Sabri al Banna, Abu Nidal, in and out of Iraq for several years. When he refused to cooperate with Baghdad on attacks against Syria, he was told to leave. He came back again later when he was found to be useful. He died last summer, almost a year ago, of four gunshot wounds to the head. The Iraqis describe this as suicide. I don't think so. I would imagine that Saddam decided to remove the evidence of his links to one of the most notorious of international terrorists at a time when the United States was increasing pressure on him to reveal weapons of mass destruction and accusing him of sponsoring al Qaeda.
He sheltered the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, the Iranian anti-regime group which helped him in his fight against us. He supported their attacks against Iran when it was to his benefit, and on occasion, he would threaten to close them down when he wanted to get closer to Tehran for whatever reasons."
07/09/03 Judith Yaphe

Answer 9

The only thing I know is that liberal Fox News is just a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party!

Answer 10

Yes, propaganda,is the exclusive product of the left, they are the
ones trying to pedal lies.