Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FactCheck.org vs. Media Fund & THE BUSH FACTS – A Partisan Fraud Exposed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
BushLicks Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 06:50 PM
Original message
FactCheck.org vs. Media Fund & THE BUSH FACTS – A Partisan Fraud Exposed
AN OPEN LETTER TO:

FactCheck.org,

Your August 11 article, “Media Fund Ad Misquotes Bush,” has been proven to be a partisan fabrication.

In fact, the Media Fund ad referenced DOES NOT EVEN ATTRIBUTE ANY QUOTES TO BUSH, proving that your article is a fraud from the title line down.

Do you people really need to have somebody explain to you what a “quote” is?

On top of that, in this same article, you prove the claims about Bush and outsourcing to be correct. By indicating that Bush has, in context, openly expressed opposition to changing to the tax code which -- as a matter of FACT -- currently provides outsourcing incentives, FactCheck.org has shown that the quote, “he's going to help companies outsource,” is spot-on accurate.

(PLEASE NOTE: In order for the people at FactCheck.org to understand the above paragraph, they will first have to invest in a dictionary and look up the word “quote.”)

Conclusion: FactCheck.org has proven itself to be an incompetent, dishonest fraud.

Well done.

The original August 11 FactCheck.org article can be found here:
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=236
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. There is no doubt that factcheck is a Republican front
Thank you for posting this. Some additional supporting facts:

Look at Factcheck's conclusion in the SmearVets for Bush case:

At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231



By the way, they also give Bush a pass on being AWOL, failing to examine the question of whether he showed up, and repeating the Bush campaign spin "he was credited". New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)


Who bankrolls factcheck? The Annenberg Foundation. Check out the trustees and staff:

Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg
Founder, 1908-2002

Trustees

Leonore Annenberg
President, Chairman and Sole Director

Wallis Annenberg
Vice-President

Lauren Bon
Charles Annenberg Weingarten
Gregory Annenberg Weingarten

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/about/about_show.htm?doc_id=210597



Now check out the political donations.
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=PA&last=Annenberg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm still waiting for a response to my "Swiftboat Vets" complaint.
In FactCheck's infancy, Mr. Jackson was quite happy to answer my e-mails. Funny, he hasn't gotten around to this one:

"At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to
resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth."

Then what, exactly, is your purpose? I have given FactCheck the benefit of
the doubt in the past, but no longer. There are other, far more long-lived
and apparently less biased, organizations performing the same function.

Ed Gillespie's slip-up, even if it was a mistake, is just too
telling--particuarly your contention that the response PROVES you aren't
biased. It does nothing of the sort, it just proves that you are just as
capable of covering your own posterior region as anyone.

I shall get my facts from other sources--Snopes may not be elegant, but she
does a fine job of doing what you want to do, but have failed.

This isn't the first time I have pointed out some sneaky bias, but it will
be the last. I am unsubscribing.


WE NEED TO EXPOSE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE AND SHUT THEM DOWN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I've done that too
right from the beginning, I've been emailing them politely about various things, and they've responded.

At this point, they seem to close to dropping their pretenses, and just devoting themselves to debunking Kerry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. appropriately harsh
FactCheck.org is one of the more despicable pro-Bush blogs, since it very deliberately and premeditatedly hides its partisanship behind its lofty statement of its mission. :mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BushLicks Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. How abut CapitolHillBlue.com?
Why would they reprint this garbage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. at least CHB doesn't pretend to be serious
let alone non-partisan. FactCheck is just a pretentious cousin of CHB.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC