well im pretty sure that google DID buy the old analog TV bandwidth frequency (after the FCC forced by law all to go Digital). Not sure how you can OWN a frequency but... moreover what do they plan on doing with that? scary? I dont know.
Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
@MaudsPas Agreed. This would just be a way for the owners of Google to fabricate the truth to there liking. Like you said, That is exactly what they are doing now, with main stream media. The mane difference is that the corporatocracy would be able to prove that there lies are truth, because if Google says it's true than it must be... Idk.. I just don't trust it.
@ryuenden I think it would make lying more difficult and the lies would be more like half truths then full on propaganda. But It's a good point, if someone makes a misleading comment and then the fact check comes back "TRUE" it may give those half-truths more weight, but you could shine light on the misleading comments much easier then you could full on propaganda.
As far as the news goes it's all B.S. You can't believe anything you read, hear on TV, except maybe final sports scores. Back in the 1980's when there was fighting in Beirut Lebanon I passed two news paper stands in Los Angeles Ca. The L.A. Herald Examiner on the front page said all was quiet in Beirut last night. The Los Angeles Times reported there was intense fighting in Beirut last night. 2 reporters reporting in the same place couldn't tell if there was fighting or not. Which is it????
WAKE UP AMERICA.. REPUBLICAN & DEMS ARE BOTH SELLING OUT THE US CONSTITUTION TO (GLOBAL GOVERMENT)... THE US CONSTITUTION IS BEING DISMANTELED ... ONE DAY @ A TIME ** DONT BE A SHEEP ** ((VOTE INDEPENDANT)) VOTE FOR THE US CONSTITUION ** WAKE UP AMERICA**
no...actually I means the end of LIBERALS lying through their teeth and mischaracterizing everyone they meet and PLACING their means and methodologies as an accusation of their OWN intended actions..
dont like that?
nah, figured you wouldnt, it means you cant hold all the cards and let your media empire defend you any long, you empty suits.
Fox News was the first round, internet was the second, this is the third..
prepare to meet the canvas, and get counted out, you liberal hacks
Liberal "Butt-boy for a Nanny State/ Overblown Tyrannical Government"Viewer only wants his ideology protected because he is to arrogant to recognize his blatant hypocrisy....he uses the same logic as the liberal bums who automatically bring up George Bush when they find out I don't support Benito Obama.....liberals are wired differently...like a short-circuiting idiot switch....poor logic skills is a basic defintion of a LIBERAL
@meanranger Why do you liberal morons always always always bring up GWB when people express dislike of OBAMA? Last time I checked they weren't running against each other! Smarmy arrogant douche-nozzles! Thank God there are only a smatering of liberals in this country...go live in Europe where Liberal policy is destroying a free way of living
@meanranger It was "I'm a lying ass hole" (Obama) or "I'm a second bush with an idiot as VP, but I'm not going to lie about wanting to bomb Iran." (McCain)... i wanted Ron Paul to win.
I find it funny after a period of having virtually the same story slant regardless of which news outlets you listened to that a news outlet with a different outlook breaking the monopoly gets loudly declaimed as false and biased.
We bought their oils and they bought us with the same moneys. It is too late; the white house & Europe in the terrorists hands, major industries, communications, Microsoft, banks, law enforcement, armies, & hospitals are in terrorists hands, Yahoo & YouTube were sold to unknown investors, it says Google but who owns Google & Yahoo. Is it Iran or Saudi Arabia? YouTube Google & Yahoo Users are on the surveillance list. No more freedom of speech, those that insult terrorists will be ?
this would be so freaking sweet, after all dishonesty needs to be removed from the news and politics, its going to bite the ass of the republicans that is for sure.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What is wrong with you people, did you hear of FREE SPEACH or are so far off track that you can never hold true or trust anyone's word. This is called do your own research, do you really think this Google idea would give your opinion right or wrong as it be to be put on you tube. Think about it! I hate watching some of the other medias such as CNN and the others because they suck at news anchors. Boring
It would be nice if people could actually be held accountable for the lies and misrepresentations they spread. I say this eyeballing Fox News with a frown.
Now, being someone who is intimately involved in the tech industry, I am usually not the kind of person who would underestimate the power of technology. However, at least the way Fox describes it, I do not see this "truth checker" coming soon. I mean, it would work for simple things to check if they are outright lying (misquoting someone possibly, giving cited statistics incorrectly, etc), but the technology is limited in how it can analyze the academic community, and investigate truth.
Oh, btw... There is no such thing as honest media, liberal or conservative, they both fight for their interests. We have a conservative president and used to have a conservative Washington, so fox had the most propaganda. Once we have liberal leaders, the liberal media will be spewing the most propaganda. Never trust governments, never trust media owned by private organizations or government, and always do your own research on anything you hear. Otherwise stay out of politics.
The problem is Google has an interest in politicians that is self serving . If I promiss them a tax cut , then they will alter the sowftware to make me look good . What a scam !!
Agreed.. The only way to know for certain if something is true is to research it yourself, using media sources outside the US and using logic to fill in the gaps. Unfortunately that's too much work for most Americans. Don't worry though, one way or another a solution will come along, either America will drop out of the top list on everything soon (Including Military and GNP), our government will collapse as all empires do, or the people and politicians will turn things around and screw the corp.
lol, it's kind of like that with youtube and google now, loving free speech and freedom of information for the first time in history! But we all know that the truth predictor will be programmed to assume any Bill'O show has a 99.9% chance of being false!
My biggest concern is that all new things are shiny at first but as the years go by dust and grime accumulate on them. Same with laws...they seem flawless when made but over the years people find ways to abuse it. Truth prediction will only lead to a new, but probably not less, way for politicians to manipulate people.
Is there ever been a point in history where the media told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I say No. Will it ever change. Not as long as money is the voice of reason. The media is controlled by the elite. I can not see google changing that. It is just other part of the dog and pony show.
laugh, lying politicians obselete? this is absolutely hilarious. You'd get the truth from 1000 lawyers before you'd get it from ANY of today's politicians. I can write the software right now. No code required. Just slap the the words "HE'S LYING TO YOU" next to every politician as he shoots his mouth off and flushes the country down the toilet.
This extremely lame video and its obviously skewed political views aside, if this truth preditor would ever be a real thing it would be the best thing since sliced bread! It would cut the BS from the far left and far right and we would find America in a more moderate political place like it should be.
Calling the video "lame" and the views "skewed" is just namecalling/labeling. If there is something in this video that is inaccurate, just point it out. If not, y not admit it?
I tell you why it is skewed. You only "fact checked" two people, Both from the right. Why don't you "fact check" Hillary,Ted Kennedy, John F Kerry, William Jefferson. Check them and then I'll give you a few more,Like Michael MOORE. While you are busy watching FOX looking for errors, You're being played by your own team. And it's lame just because it's lame.
To make this video, I needed footage of one politicians and one pundit sayng something false that could be easily refuted with a Google search. GW Bush and Bill O'Reilly provided multiple examples I already had captured. If you have footage of those others saying something flase feel free to make the vid. It's not my fault (or "skewed"), however, that Bush and O'Reilly provide so many more examples and that I already have them recorded from recent events.
Just because its the only footage you have doesn't mean it's not skewed. In fact it shows your own bias because its the only footage you have. If you were objective you have footage of the people I mentioned. Because you don't have any footage, does that mean they are honest??
Just b/c I don't have footage of someone's dishonesty doesnt mean they are not dishonest, but if the footage is so easy to find, why haven't you uploaded it?
In any case, youre missing the point. Your claim of bias is based on an assumption I chose from all footage ever anywhere. In fact, both clips in this vid appear in other vids I have made which is the universe from which I was choosing.
No you are missing the point. The <i> fact that you only have these clips</i> shows your bias. You won't even investigate the left. Because you are a good lib and you just drink the kool-aid w/o question.
LOL! So, u claim I have a lib bias b/c I watch too much Fox News? That's the 1st Ive heard that one!
Actually, if u look on my YT profile, you'll see an incomplete but still pretty eclectic list of media sources I watch. I make more vids about Fox b/c Fox happens to provide a daily dose of ideological bias while other outlets tend to have different, more subtle bias. FYI, U can see me criticizing NBC in my latest vid
Nice dodge. But I didn't say u are a lib b/c u watch FOX.I said u r a lib who watches FOX for the sole purpose of looking for sound bites that you can skew. I have seen your profile. I have even fav'd one of your vids.
You asked why it was skewed, I answered. you can twist the argument all you want. This vid is biased. just admit and we can be friends.
Calling my previous response a "dodge" and repeating your claim that "This vid is biased" does not address my point. We do not have to agree to be friends, but you seem to have missed the premise of the video. If you listen, I say:
"I wonder how the clips from politicians and Fox News that I upload to YouTube might be affected by the future Google feature I saw reported..."
Then I use clips from my previous vids just like I said. How is that biased?
Because, of the 35 vids I made before this one, 16 included footage from Fox, most of those as fodder for my Fox News Bias playlist (unless I miscounted). As I said several posts back:
"I make more vids about Fox b/c Fox happens to provide a daily dose of ideological bias while other outlets tend to have different, more subtle bias."
My 35 vids before this one DO include clips from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC, by the way.
PS And, to fit teh last question, I was also looking for a "politician" and a "pundit." The only "pundit" I usually criticize for bias is Bill O'Reilly. That's b/c pundits are usually supposed to give you their spin, but O'Reilly specifically claims to present a "spin free zone."
Politics will always have it's nonsense...but to find a way to get rid of the annoying tactic of claiming a lie is truth over and over and over and over again as we've lived through over the last two terms...
The bias of the video is that google's truth prediction will actually predict the truth. That bias has nothing to do with liberal/conservative partisanship. But of course the video is biased...it gives examples of what they 'think' it will be like...
This is a dangerous step toward more people doing less fact checking on their own. Most will accept the outcome of the truth checker. Which can be like I said dangerous
It's hard to say how the truth predictor will really work. I'd have to see it and compare it to the traditional Fact-Checking websites. If it works that way, then it can definitely be a useful tool of democracy.
so true, i hope youtube brings an end to the trainwreck of media these days. For the first time theres and alternative to just being fed what the big news media corps. tell us. I hope our government doesn't find a way to mess something this good up, but im sure they will.
but the purchase won't have an effect common sense- as long as there's common sense liberals will be defeated. you are as 'bad' as fox news and as boring as NPR
but the purchase won't have an effect common sense- as long as there's common sense liberals will be defeated. you are as 'bad' as fox news and as boring as NPR
seems that GWB does violence to the Constitution. he has shredded it to ribbons thru lies and deceit. If W's mouth is moving the probability of lying is enormous.
Im confused? Does fox own google? Does fox own google but not say it owns google? Im noticing many videos slamming the administration are being pulled due to violating rules. Somehow, I think its the beginning of you tube censorship. There is an angle i cant figure out yet.
2. Not all questions have clear cut true/false answers.
3. Truth results would be prone to manipulation. SEO companies manipulate Google search results as a career, and the same would be done to truth results. Computers just aren't smart enough.
The idea is ridiculous. It should and probably will be dismissed.
All journalism is biased to some degree and because controversy sales many go all the way. The news is no longer about information but about entertainment.
Also I am enjoying your clips LiberalViewer. I may not agree with it all but it defiantly is entertaining.
You want Liberal media bias? Check out CNN's "Broken Government" The name itself is sickening. It airs nearly every day, and just rails anything conservative while explaining how every Deomocrat candidate running for election is Jesus incarnate. Even if there is no other bias anywhere on any side, this one show makes me want to vomit. Its like they just took the book of journalism and chucked it out the window.
Here's a website that keeps track of "liberal media bias."
newsbusters_org
You say this could put FOX news out of business, but what about the other new channels? Here's the deal...everybody has a bias. Some are just more transparent with their views than others.
That's why OPINION shows get more ratings that "straight news" shows. Make no mistake, the Daily Show is an opinion show.
LOL, I can't wait until the day when politicans are actually forced to tell the truth. Maybe then we'll actually get a) a women president, b) a black president, or c) a president who's actually not white, male, and filthy rich. Thank you.
I'd like output from voice-stress analyzers to be put into a corner of the screen for each politician's and pundit's speech. Too bad that the really accurate ones are limited to law enforcement or I'd buy one. And I'd still google them to find proof of consistency.
what is this journalism thing you speak of? i watch the news and see alot of what burned down, where people got shot, then some fluffy human interest stories ... thats journalism isnt it? <thumbsup>
I have NOT deleted any of your posts. Did you try to post a web address? I notice the YouTube comment filter used to give me an error message when I tried to post a web address, but now it just says "comment posted," but my comment never shows up.
If you are trying to post a web address to YouTube you need to mask the URL, like replace "." with "*DOT*" as I sometimes do
I DO NOT DELETE COMMENTS EXCEPT AD SPAM AFTER A WARNING TO SPAMMER
Oh, that stinks. Yeah, I linked to a few web addresses. Sorry for assuming you were deleting my comments. I guess you are going to have to go on believing that the media is fair-handed, because I'm not interested in working that hard to show you it's not :)
Why do you keep deleting my posts liberalviewer? Do you not really want to see a list of examples if liberal bias on CNN, BBC, NYT, (MS)NBC, ABC Australia, AP, and the AFP?
I know liberals are not interested in hearing dissent, but I hoped you were genuinely interested. Was I wrong?
Yes, blogagog, your "thing" is on ...unfortunately, your brain also needs to be switched on for you to communicate intelligently. Otherwise you'll continue to transmit messages that are "content free". ;-)
Finally, I notice u still TALK about liberal bias in the media but STILL GIVE NO EXAMPLES
I found over a dozen examples of Fox News bias in the last few months just in my free time Don't believe me? Check out the FOX NEWS BIAS PLAYLIST LINK in the full description of this video
IF LIBERAL BIAS IS SO RAMPANT, WHERE'S YOUR LIST OF EXAMPLES FROM THE LAST FEW MONTHS?
In her next video, tho, she advocated the very flagging about which she had complained. Then, when I joined the conservative YouTube group and posted my criticism of Malkin's actions, they deleted almost all of my comments.
Regarding some of your other points, I'm not sure which video is my "first video" to which u refer or how stuff from Oct 3 would have been relevant. If you explain, I could respond.
I don't know who LGF is, but I was just personally shown that MICHELLE MALKIN IS A BIG HYPOCRITE. I subscribed to her YouTube channel months ago because I like getting opinions from all sides. As a subscriber, I saw her recent video, "YouTubeGoes Dhimmi," complaining about flagging of conservative videos and I even sent her a private message in support of her free speech (and a suggestion to allow comments on her videos)
I watched the first video where you seem to be angry that FOX allows Republicans to make their case, instead of just hearing from Democrats. BTW, why did you cut out the interview FOX did with Democrats on Oct 3, such as the one with John Kerry? Balanced coverage does indeed mean hearing from both sides...
That sounds like a job, and it's most of what right of center blogs expose every day. If you hit LGF, 24 hours won't go by without them posting an example. Same with Ms. Malkin. It's a good idea though, and I will start cataloging them, since I read those sites anyway.
There is bias in everything put together by humans, but, if you forgive he violent analogy, comparing Fox News bias to bias in those other outlets is like comparing targeting civilians to collateral damage. It's a matter of intent.
Don't believe me? Check out the FOX NEWS BIAS PLAYLIST LINK in the full description of this video
Over a dozen examples from the last few months I found in my spare time
I'm with Jaquititi, TRUTH=propaganda. If FOX won't spin the news like CNN, BBC, ABC (Australia), CBC, or the NYT, how are we supposed to know what to think?
While this does has potential, I see a problem with its relieability. They can't completely exclude former spin/manipulations(google bombing, anyone?).
Now, thats just fine if you know this and just use it for quick pre-checks (and do some checking yourself later), but the problem is that the vast majority of the population don't do any factchecking - meaning they just might accept what that predictor says as true, without any checking.
I guess the dangers of THAT are obvious to all of us.
OTOH, it will be fun to see how all those people who repeatedly contradict themselves (O'Liely, Bush&co) might fare with this ;-)
re:CAN GOOGLE'S PROPOSED "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" DO THE JOB THAT JOURNALISTS SHOULD BE DOING? -we're long on "should be doing" in many areas -suggested replacement would be "are not doing"
their "job"!- that ship has largely sailed
their job has proven itself to be selling soap, cars, diapers, ect. -and clawing amongst themselves for market share toward the above goal
this "device" would have a hard time w/ declarative statements that are not tied to background info e.g.
"I did not have sex w/ that woman"(the pause and then sez "Miss Lewinsky" might tie some background), or "Abramof never met ? in the White House" -at the time, inaccuracies in these statements were not provable -i bet it would choke on people w/ a speech impediment
unfortunately, the use of bill o'reilly and ACLU in this clip -may- have changed the subject and clouded discussion of a possibly interesting app.-LV is not hiding "it's" leanings, and sniping righties may have been the point -i kinda hope not
It's a 3 minute video, only room 4 one politico and 1 pundit in my narrative. To make my video, I needed a clip of a politician and pundit saying things false that could be corrected with an easy google search. I had Bush and O'Reilly clips that fit.
If you have other clips that fit, feel free to upload them
From your previous criticism I was expecting some claim of factual dishonesty on my part, BUT YOUR CRITICISM IS ALL OPINION, NO FACTS
LiberalViewer, you could've done better. I'm being sincere.
You should have found actual innacuracies. Not opinions you disagree with.
For example, not everyone likes the ACLU. Your clip actually says that it's the indisputable TRUTH that the ACLU fights for freedom. I don't see it that way. I see the ACLU as a bigoted oppressive organization. You should have looked for things that weren't just opinions, but rather factual errors.
O'Reilly said the ACLU opposes all displays of religion on public property and "judgment based faith."
If you google "ACLU Fights for Christians," you'll find LITERALLY DOZENS OF EXAMPLES OF THE ACLU DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF CHRISTIANS TO SPEAK AS CHRISTIANS AND PRACTICE CHRISTIANITY
Many of these are "public displays" of "judgment based faith" that prove O'Reilly's statement a FALSE FACT
Listen to the clip again. O'Reilly said the ACLU opposes "ALL displays of religion on public property." Thus, I prove O'Reilly's statement FALSE by showing MANY cases of the ACLU SUPPORTING DISPLAYS OF RELIGION ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
You're missing the correct distinction. The ACLU isnt for or against any religion; it opposes GOVERNMENT religion just as strongly as it fights for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion
Saying the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian is FALSE
Saying the ACLU is anti-GOVERNMENT religion is TRUE
That's why youre wrong to say the ACLU has a religion of "secularism." ACLU members are Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. They all just oppose GOVERNMENT religion
That's not "secularism" that's a basic American principle enshrined in the 1st Amendment
"Saying the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian is FALSE"
You assert that the ACLU is not anti-Christian. You assert this as indisputable fact.
I dispute it.
Thus, we disagree. But you insist that when I say "The ACLU is anti-Christian," I'm not stating my opinion. Instead, you say I'm lying. When others disagree with you, you respond by calling them liars.
Argue ideas. Use evidence. But stop calling differing opinions "lies."
Hold on, now! When did I ever say you were "lying?"
What I said was that O'Reilly statement was FACTUALLY FALSE when he said the ACLU opposes "ALL displays of religion on public property." I PROVED O'Reilly's statement FALSE by showing MANY cases of the ACLU SUPPORTING DISPLAYS OF RELIGION ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
I understand well the difference between FACT and OPINION. I've been arguing about the ACLU online for many years now and I know the ACLU pretty well (see my profile). I've found that people who think the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian usually misunderstand the ACLU.
The ACLU has certain policies. That's a FACT.
Based on those policies, the ACLU has taken positions in a lot of religion cases over the years. That's a FACT.
When you analyze those FACTS (ie ACLU policy/positions), you find the ACLU ISNT FOR OR AGAINST ANY RELIGION; it opposes GOV religion just as strongly as it fights for INDIVIDUAL free exercise
Now if you think Christianity requires GOV endorsement (some people do; theyre entitled to their OPINION) then AND ONLY THEN does it make sense to say the ACLU's anti-Christian. Otherwise, saying the ACLU's anti-Christian is based on a misunderstanding of FACTS (ie ACLU policy/positions).
Of course, our GOV is made up of INDIVIDUALS and reasonable people can disagree when INDIVIDUAL action becomes GOV endorsement. I disagreed with ACLU on the Good News Club case in the US Supreme Court, but that doesn't make the ACLU anti-religion. And, it's FALSE and UNFAIR to call people anti-Christian or anti-religion just because you disagree with them over where to draw the line on the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause
Finally, as I said, ACLU members are Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. They can all come together at the ACLU because the ACLU IS RELIGION NEUTRAL. They can all come together at the ACLU because they all just oppose GOVERNMENT religion
Or, do you have FACT I don't know about? Do you have a case of the ACLU opposing religion that did not actually involve GOVERNMENT religion?
Here is a base assertion of mine; ALL GOVERMENTS SUPPORT ONE WORLDVIEW OR ANOTHER. Some specifically identify the religion they are based on. Some are loosely based on a religion. But to claim you can "remove religion from goverment" is absurd and impossible.
Atheism is a worldview. As is universalism. As is secularism. Every person and every group has a worldview. Call it "religion," a "set of morals," or call it "common sense." They're all the same in the end - they're what you BELIEVE.
And what the ACLU strives for is the elimination of fundamental Christian precepts from government. The ACLU might sometimes SETTLE for "equalizing" religions within goverment, (AKA reducing the relative influence of Christianity), but their eventual goal is removing religion from goverment. And they get to define "religion."
1) you keep missing LV's emphasis on "ALL" in the statement that O'Reilly said the ACLU opposes "ALL displays of religion on public property." Even a single instance is sufficient to disprove that assertion.
3) I, for one, dislike fundamental Christian precepts to be IMPOSED on me by the government. I would feel the same about Muslim precepts. I could probably deal with Zen Buddhist precepts, but they just want to be left alone to bash each other in the search for enlightenment, which is a pretty noble goal even if they are sometimes silly in how they try to reach it.
Got a good laugh out of that, thanks for the vid. By the way zac118, check out the whistleblower clips, you might find out that FOX is registered at the FCC as an ENTERTAINMENT show, NOT NEWS. If you really care about the feelings of a propaganda machine like FAUX at a time like this, than you are either being paid by them, or you are terribly ignorant. ...or should I say, a dumbass??
If you're going to call me a "shill" and imply I "spin and distort facts" you could at least back it up with something, anything. Any specifics at all?
Otherwise, it just looks to me like a baseless attack...
i donno...i'll send this clip to fox news & see if they like the way you disect its news & whether they regard this as an infringement of their copyright property! dumbasss!
Who are you calling a "dumbasss" and why? Nothing in your comment supports the "dumbass" remark, so I'm curious.
As for copyright infringemnet, there is a 4 factor test 4 FAIR USE that doesnt really provide clear answers, but, media analysis/criticism IS an area specifically covered.
Are u trying to give me legal advice? Are u a lawyer? I am...
Which is why I ask: Who are you calling a "dumbasss" and why?
Send it to them.. chances are, they will turn on you by copying porn over it or calling the FBI on the psycho crackpipe pot. Go WACO someplace else. Gee, clinton didn't go sue FOX for a hatchet job. BTW, think with the ratings tanking they can afford an attorney? Go console your pediphile mark foley and leave democracy alone, yea douchebag.
This is the best thing I've seen all night. hahaha. Hilarious and I can't wait. I hope the truth indicator" is exactly like the red screen and the little alien voice. I really like this, because I think ALL politicians are liars.
WHERE IS THIS SOFTWARE?
Herohater50 4 months ago 3
@Herohater50 I know right! lol
TitaniumTicTac 4 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
I for one, welcome our future overlords, google.
-hail google-
TitaniumTicTac 4 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@Herohater50
(5 years later)
gamerunknown 4 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
well im pretty sure that google DID buy the old analog TV bandwidth frequency (after the FCC forced by law all to go Digital). Not sure how you can OWN a frequency but... moreover what do they plan on doing with that? scary? I dont know.
HorticultureShow 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
Bawbster1 7 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
no i think even TRYING to use it on o'reilly will crash your computer and display NONONONOONONONONO
cake1834 7 months ago in playlist fox news bias
YouGoog
xMTJGxTeaM 10 months ago
GoogTube
Wuvox 11 months ago
You can't believe ANYTHING a liberal says, and that includes the FAR LEFT GOOGLE. They're a bunch of globalist mind control freaks. They need to GO!
Emmie949 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK GOOGLE> I DONT WANT TO LINK MY YOUTUBE ACCOUNT W/ A FUCKING GOOGLE ACCOUNT
......
ESP1EMG 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK GOOGLE> I DONT WANT TO LINK MY YOUTUBE ACCOUNT W/ A FUCKING GOOGLE ACCOUNT
ESP1EMG 11 months ago
I SERIOUSLY WANT SOMEONE FROM GOOGLE TO DIE RIGHT NOW IM SO PISSED
ESP1EMG 11 months ago
FUCK GOOGLE
ESP1EMG 11 months ago
FUCK GOOGLE> I DONT WANT TO LINK MY YOUTUBE ACCOUNT W/ A FUCKING GOOGLE ACCOUNT
ESP1EMG 11 months ago
another fox hater,go sit in your tiny room and watch MSNBCand have multiple orgasms....
nomass3 11 months ago
@nomass3 why don't you take an IQ test, and if you score less than 100, shut the fuck up for the rest of your ignorant life. That sound cool?
BelgianJungleSound 11 months ago
Do you think things have gotten better or worse, since the purchase, involving your relationship with Youtube?
shoopoop21 1 year ago
oh and P.S. to LiberalViewer: i love your voice :D you sir need to be on the radio lol i'd listen to you :P
lemonsnickers1 1 year ago
ooo the 5 year mark is comin up soon :)
lemonsnickers1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
liberals = victimhood mentality 24 / 7
macarion 1 year ago
nopersoncommittee, dot org
herbg3 1 year ago
in 3 days we've only got 1 year to wait for the truth predictor
TeamFalseTeeth 1 year ago
No!! I think that the ruling elite will use this media and program it to tell the "truth" they want you to know.
ryuenden 1 year ago
@ryuenden As opposed to what? That is exactly that we have in main stream media now.
fairness doctrine repeal destroyed journalism.
MaudsPas 1 year ago
@MaudsPas Agreed. This would just be a way for the owners of Google to fabricate the truth to there liking. Like you said, That is exactly what they are doing now, with main stream media. The mane difference is that the corporatocracy would be able to prove that there lies are truth, because if Google says it's true than it must be... Idk.. I just don't trust it.
ryuenden 1 year ago
@ryuenden I think it would make lying more difficult and the lies would be more like half truths then full on propaganda. But It's a good point, if someone makes a misleading comment and then the fact check comes back "TRUE" it may give those half-truths more weight, but you could shine light on the misleading comments much easier then you could full on propaganda.
MaudsPas 1 year ago
As far as the news goes it's all B.S. You can't believe anything you read, hear on TV, except maybe final sports scores. Back in the 1980's when there was fighting in Beirut Lebanon I passed two news paper stands in Los Angeles Ca. The L.A. Herald Examiner on the front page said all was quiet in Beirut last night. The Los Angeles Times reported there was intense fighting in Beirut last night. 2 reporters reporting in the same place couldn't tell if there was fighting or not. Which is it????
buttrum1951 1 year ago
WAKE UP AMERICA.. REPUBLICAN & DEMS ARE BOTH SELLING OUT THE US CONSTITUTION TO (GLOBAL GOVERMENT)... THE US CONSTITUTION IS BEING DISMANTELED ... ONE DAY @ A TIME ** DONT BE A SHEEP ** ((VOTE INDEPENDANT)) VOTE FOR THE US CONSTITUION ** WAKE UP AMERICA**
notlibsuckup 1 year ago
VOTE FOR THE US CONSTITUTION**** VOTE INDEPENDANT***
notlibsuckup 1 year ago
no...actually I means the end of LIBERALS lying through their teeth and mischaracterizing everyone they meet and PLACING their means and methodologies as an accusation of their OWN intended actions..
dont like that?
nah, figured you wouldnt, it means you cant hold all the cards and let your media empire defend you any long, you empty suits.
Fox News was the first round, internet was the second, this is the third..
prepare to meet the canvas, and get counted out, you liberal hacks
80spodcastchannel 1 year ago
LOL@ Bush
Uzukune 1 year ago
Liberal "Butt-boy for a Nanny State/ Overblown Tyrannical Government"Viewer only wants his ideology protected because he is to arrogant to recognize his blatant hypocrisy....he uses the same logic as the liberal bums who automatically bring up George Bush when they find out I don't support Benito Obama.....liberals are wired differently...like a short-circuiting idiot switch....poor logic skills is a basic defintion of a LIBERAL
meanranger 1 year ago 3
@meanranger Why do you liberal morons always always always bring up GWB when people express dislike of OBAMA? Last time I checked they weren't running against each other! Smarmy arrogant douche-nozzles! Thank God there are only a smatering of liberals in this country...go live in Europe where Liberal policy is destroying a free way of living
meanranger 1 year ago
@meanranger It was "I'm a lying ass hole" (Obama) or "I'm a second bush with an idiot as VP, but I'm not going to lie about wanting to bomb Iran." (McCain)... i wanted Ron Paul to win.
BlackPandaTKS 1 year ago
I find it funny after a period of having virtually the same story slant regardless of which news outlets you listened to that a news outlet with a different outlook breaking the monopoly gets loudly declaimed as false and biased.
theyaden 1 year ago
We bought their oils and they bought us with the same moneys. It is too late; the white house & Europe in the terrorists hands, major industries, communications, Microsoft, banks, law enforcement, armies, & hospitals are in terrorists hands, Yahoo & YouTube were sold to unknown investors, it says Google but who owns Google & Yahoo. Is it Iran or Saudi Arabia? YouTube Google & Yahoo Users are on the surveillance list. No more freedom of speech, those that insult terrorists will be ?
moliando 1 year ago
Awesome!
mbluescat61 1 year ago
the problem is politicians talk too much. They contradict themselves even if they don't know it. How many times have you contradicted yourself?
DrMu5tCh3at2W1n 1 year ago
Heh heh heh. No.
DarksporkLeader 2 years ago
lol liberal I guess since the journalists are no longer doing that someone had to invent something that will
questionsamson 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rock and Roll the meaning:
1) REACT
2) MARRIAGE then COMFORT RANK
(instant money printing, laugh prints instant, prof kid, bit0h, 3000 days celibate, no guilt by association, cherry)
ans:safe engineering (maple graphing) use functions for distribution.
KristinaBrooker 2 years ago
this would be so freaking sweet, after all dishonesty needs to be removed from the news and politics, its going to bite the ass of the republicans that is for sure.
S2000fred 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What is wrong with you people, did you hear of FREE SPEACH or are so far off track that you can never hold true or trust anyone's word. This is called do your own research, do you really think this Google idea would give your opinion right or wrong as it be to be put on you tube. Think about it! I hate watching some of the other medias such as CNN and the others because they suck at news anchors. Boring
Katalina1955 2 years ago
@Katalina1955 So lying to people is good?
PhillyWargamer 2 years ago
It would be nice if people could actually be held accountable for the lies and misrepresentations they spread. I say this eyeballing Fox News with a frown.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago 13
Indeed
BananaHurricane 2 years ago
top liberals & republicans dont want americans doing any critical thinking
akvalues 2 years ago
Lol u act like democrats dont lie. Example, blagojevich
InActuallity 2 years ago
everyone lies....... if he was a Republican he would show clips of lying democrats. He never once said that Democrats don't lie.
charmedbythedarkarts 2 years ago
I thinnk they'll have to exclude O'Reilly for the faqct that each show would bring their servers down.
tdurran 3 years ago 15
machine can be wrong to yes people need to do their jobs
jedismith5 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BILL O on FOx is pretty good, eye tell you!
frank0067 3 years ago
Now, being someone who is intimately involved in the tech industry, I am usually not the kind of person who would underestimate the power of technology. However, at least the way Fox describes it, I do not see this "truth checker" coming soon. I mean, it would work for simple things to check if they are outright lying (misquoting someone possibly, giving cited statistics incorrectly, etc), but the technology is limited in how it can analyze the academic community, and investigate truth.
generaleskimo 3 years ago
Oh, btw... There is no such thing as honest media, liberal or conservative, they both fight for their interests. We have a conservative president and used to have a conservative Washington, so fox had the most propaganda. Once we have liberal leaders, the liberal media will be spewing the most propaganda. Never trust governments, never trust media owned by private organizations or government, and always do your own research on anything you hear. Otherwise stay out of politics.
Daharen 3 years ago 4
dude.. polititians and pondents or w/e have been obsolete for like ever..
gunzkillu 3 years ago
The problem is Google has an interest in politicians that is self serving . If I promiss them a tax cut , then they will alter the sowftware to make me look good . What a scam !!
passwordthisasspart2 3 years ago
Agreed.. The only way to know for certain if something is true is to research it yourself, using media sources outside the US and using logic to fill in the gaps. Unfortunately that's too much work for most Americans. Don't worry though, one way or another a solution will come along, either America will drop out of the top list on everything soon (Including Military and GNP), our government will collapse as all empires do, or the people and politicians will turn things around and screw the corp.
Daharen 3 years ago
Fox is flat out propoganda !! They deserve to be destroyed !!
passwordthisasspart2 3 years ago 3
Politicians and Fox will be screwed when the truth predictor comes.Liars beware.
cincinnatusnow 4 years ago 4
DIE FOX NEWS YOU MADE FUN OF Maple!
lolz
1337KR3W101 4 years ago 2
lol, it's kind of like that with youtube and google now, loving free speech and freedom of information for the first time in history! But we all know that the truth predictor will be programmed to assume any Bill'O show has a 99.9% chance of being false!
garvess 4 years ago
Might also try "America was founded by Christian leaders".
colossus999 4 years ago
HAHAHA! I can hardly wait for this software program!
mystykit 4 years ago
My biggest concern is that all new things are shiny at first but as the years go by dust and grime accumulate on them. Same with laws...they seem flawless when made but over the years people find ways to abuse it. Truth prediction will only lead to a new, but probably not less, way for politicians to manipulate people.
Aro2220 4 years ago
Is there ever been a point in history where the media told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I say No. Will it ever change. Not as long as money is the voice of reason. The media is controlled by the elite. I can not see google changing that. It is just other part of the dog and pony show.
911truthnc 4 years ago
laugh, lying politicians obselete? this is absolutely hilarious. You'd get the truth from 1000 lawyers before you'd get it from ANY of today's politicians. I can write the software right now. No code required. Just slap the the words "HE'S LYING TO YOU" next to every politician as he shoots his mouth off and flushes the country down the toilet.
tdrehfal 4 years ago
This extremely lame video and its obviously skewed political views aside, if this truth preditor would ever be a real thing it would be the best thing since sliced bread! It would cut the BS from the far left and far right and we would find America in a more moderate political place like it should be.
anryan99 4 years ago
anryan99,
Calling the video "lame" and the views "skewed" is just namecalling/labeling. If there is something in this video that is inaccurate, just point it out. If not, y not admit it?
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
I tell you why it is skewed. You only "fact checked" two people, Both from the right. Why don't you "fact check" Hillary,Ted Kennedy, John F Kerry, William Jefferson. Check them and then I'll give you a few more,Like Michael MOORE. While you are busy watching FOX looking for errors, You're being played by your own team. And it's lame just because it's lame.
mousepotato64 4 years ago
mousepotato64,
To make this video, I needed footage of one politicians and one pundit sayng something false that could be easily refuted with a Google search. GW Bush and Bill O'Reilly provided multiple examples I already had captured. If you have footage of those others saying something flase feel free to make the vid. It's not my fault (or "skewed"), however, that Bush and O'Reilly provide so many more examples and that I already have them recorded from recent events.
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
PS It's not much of an argument to claim "it's lame just because it's lame"
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Just because its the only footage you have doesn't mean it's not skewed. In fact it shows your own bias because its the only footage you have. If you were objective you have footage of the people I mentioned. Because you don't have any footage, does that mean they are honest??
mousepotato64 4 years ago
mousepotato64,
Just b/c I don't have footage of someone's dishonesty doesnt mean they are not dishonest, but if the footage is so easy to find, why haven't you uploaded it?
In any case, youre missing the point. Your claim of bias is based on an assumption I chose from all footage ever anywhere. In fact, both clips in this vid appear in other vids I have made which is the universe from which I was choosing.
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
No you are missing the point. The <i> fact that you only have these clips</i> shows your bias. You won't even investigate the left. Because you are a good lib and you just drink the kool-aid w/o question.
mousepotato64 4 years ago
mousepotato64,
LOL! So, u claim I have a lib bias b/c I watch too much Fox News? That's the 1st Ive heard that one!
Actually, if u look on my YT profile, you'll see an incomplete but still pretty eclectic list of media sources I watch. I make more vids about Fox b/c Fox happens to provide a daily dose of ideological bias while other outlets tend to have different, more subtle bias. FYI, U can see me criticizing NBC in my latest vid
Thx 4 your opinion :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Nice dodge. But I didn't say u are a lib b/c u watch FOX.I said u r a lib who watches FOX for the sole purpose of looking for sound bites that you can skew. I have seen your profile. I have even fav'd one of your vids.
You asked why it was skewed, I answered. you can twist the argument all you want. This vid is biased. just admit and we can be friends.
mousepotato64 4 years ago
mousepotato64,
Calling my previous response a "dodge" and repeating your claim that "This vid is biased" does not address my point. We do not have to agree to be friends, but you seem to have missed the premise of the video. If you listen, I say:
"I wonder how the clips from politicians and Fox News that I upload to YouTube might be affected by the future Google feature I saw reported..."
Then I use clips from my previous vids just like I said. How is that biased?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
why fox news?
mousepotato64 4 years ago
mousepotato64,
Because, of the 35 vids I made before this one, 16 included footage from Fox, most of those as fodder for my Fox News Bias playlist (unless I miscounted). As I said several posts back:
"I make more vids about Fox b/c Fox happens to provide a daily dose of ideological bias while other outlets tend to have different, more subtle bias."
My 35 vids before this one DO include clips from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and ABC, by the way.
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
PS And, to fit teh last question, I was also looking for a "politician" and a "pundit." The only "pundit" I usually criticize for bias is Bill O'Reilly. That's b/c pundits are usually supposed to give you their spin, but O'Reilly specifically claims to present a "spin free zone."
And, FYI, my previous vids also used PBS footage
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Politics will always have it's nonsense...but to find a way to get rid of the annoying tactic of claiming a lie is truth over and over and over and over again as we've lived through over the last two terms...
Aro2220 4 years ago
The bias of the video is that google's truth prediction will actually predict the truth. That bias has nothing to do with liberal/conservative partisanship. But of course the video is biased...it gives examples of what they 'think' it will be like...
Aro2220 4 years ago
Great video! :)
spidercho 4 years ago
i agree fox news need to be shut down.
malkhaz 4 years ago
I smell a little 1984....
Retrosurrection 5 years ago
This is a dangerous step toward more people doing less fact checking on their own. Most will accept the outcome of the truth checker. Which can be like I said dangerous
gobblegobblechew 5 years ago
It's hard to say how the truth predictor will really work. I'd have to see it and compare it to the traditional Fact-Checking websites. If it works that way, then it can definitely be a useful tool of democracy.
principio25 5 years ago
Fox News needs to be shut down.
animeMMA 5 years ago
i'm sure the "truth predictor" would discover many inconsistencies with what people like ted kennedy or john kerry say
whip94 5 years ago
And, if you put the effort into making a video like I did, u might have evidence to back up your claim ;-)
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
i just started this... wouldn't even know how to transfer and edit video to here
whip94 5 years ago
pundits are journalists in name only. They are entertainment and nothing more. fact checking probably won't change anything
jonbauer99 5 years ago
Why is you tube censoring anti bush posts.. This is getting scary.
orlcp 5 years ago
so true, i hope youtube brings an end to the trainwreck of media these days. For the first time theres and alternative to just being fed what the big news media corps. tell us. I hope our government doesn't find a way to mess something this good up, but im sure they will.
ptorla 5 years ago
but the purchase won't have an effect common sense- as long as there's common sense liberals will be defeated. you are as 'bad' as fox news and as boring as NPR
stuartsdance 5 years ago
but the purchase won't have an effect common sense- as long as there's common sense liberals will be defeated. you are as 'bad' as fox news and as boring as NPR
stuartsdance 5 years ago
seems that GWB does violence to the Constitution. he has shredded it to ribbons thru lies and deceit. If W's mouth is moving the probability of lying is enormous.
bambi1058 5 years ago
Im confused? Does fox own google? Does fox own google but not say it owns google? Im noticing many videos slamming the administration are being pulled due to violating rules. Somehow, I think its the beginning of you tube censorship. There is an angle i cant figure out yet.
MMadmike 5 years ago
I hope to make politicans obsolete, not just their abundent use of lies.
Track607 5 years ago
makshilom monghtt fad bastardo
davisnyc 5 years ago
I think the idea is dangerous, and I hope this clip was a joke.
I don't know if my caveats have already been pointed out, but here goes:
1. No truth checker can substitute fact checking, research and critical thinking. It can however KILL it, and that is the most likely outcome.
fuqeraser 5 years ago
2. Not all questions have clear cut true/false answers.
3. Truth results would be prone to manipulation. SEO companies manipulate Google search results as a career, and the same would be done to truth results. Computers just aren't smart enough.
The idea is ridiculous. It should and probably will be dismissed.
fuqeraser 5 years ago
How about using Dan Rather's comments about the Presidents military record as an example?
barryb818 5 years ago
=) SEE OTFOXED via my MOVIE THEATHER
wwwPNACATTACKcom 5 years ago
Finally.. Something worth doing.. I was getting so tired of researching everything I fuckin see on tv.. :D Finally..
crzyboi56 5 years ago
All journalism is biased to some degree and because controversy sales many go all the way. The news is no longer about information but about entertainment.
Also I am enjoying your clips LiberalViewer. I may not agree with it all but it defiantly is entertaining.
tenthtry 5 years ago
You want Liberal media bias? Check out CNN's "Broken Government" The name itself is sickening. It airs nearly every day, and just rails anything conservative while explaining how every Deomocrat candidate running for election is Jesus incarnate. Even if there is no other bias anywhere on any side, this one show makes me want to vomit. Its like they just took the book of journalism and chucked it out the window.
promontorium 5 years ago
Good luck finding honest debate on the tele.
ramcastro 5 years ago
Here's a website that keeps track of "liberal media bias."
newsbusters_org
You say this could put FOX news out of business, but what about the other new channels? Here's the deal...everybody has a bias. Some are just more transparent with their views than others.
That's why OPINION shows get more ratings that "straight news" shows. Make no mistake, the Daily Show is an opinion show.
ChannelReviews 5 years ago
"the Daily Show is an opinion show. "
It is a comedy show. Satirical news.
ramcastro 5 years ago
LOL, I can't wait until the day when politicans are actually forced to tell the truth. Maybe then we'll actually get a) a women president, b) a black president, or c) a president who's actually not white, male, and filthy rich. Thank you.
Mintie 5 years ago
I'd like output from voice-stress analyzers to be put into a corner of the screen for each politician's and pundit's speech. Too bad that the really accurate ones are limited to law enforcement or I'd buy one. And I'd still google them to find proof of consistency.
kencomer 5 years ago
will it? we can only hope
what is this journalism thing you speak of? i watch the news and see alot of what burned down, where people got shot, then some fluffy human interest stories ... thats journalism isnt it? <thumbsup>
KhaineDarkhart 5 years ago
=) SEE OTFOXED via my MOVIE THEATHER
wwwPNACATTACKcom 5 years ago
blogagog,
I have NOT deleted any of your posts. Did you try to post a web address? I notice the YouTube comment filter used to give me an error message when I tried to post a web address, but now it just says "comment posted," but my comment never shows up.
If you are trying to post a web address to YouTube you need to mask the URL, like replace "." with "*DOT*" as I sometimes do
I DO NOT DELETE COMMENTS EXCEPT AD SPAM AFTER A WARNING TO SPAMMER
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Oh, that stinks. Yeah, I linked to a few web addresses. Sorry for assuming you were deleting my comments. I guess you are going to have to go on believing that the media is fair-handed, because I'm not interested in working that hard to show you it's not :)
Enjoy life!
blogagog 5 years ago
=) SEE OTFOXED via my MOVIE THEATHER
wwwPNACATTACKcom 5 years ago
Why do you keep deleting my posts liberalviewer? Do you not really want to see a list of examples if liberal bias on CNN, BBC, NYT, (MS)NBC, ABC Australia, AP, and the AFP?
I know liberals are not interested in hearing dissent, but I hoped you were genuinely interested. Was I wrong?
blogagog 5 years ago
reply below. Hope that helps :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Ideally you would expect anyone interested to do thier own research and not trust the puppets of television.
ramcastro 5 years ago
*tap* This thing on?
blogagog 5 years ago
Yes, blogagog, your "thing" is on ...unfortunately, your brain also needs to be switched on for you to communicate intelligently. Otherwise you'll continue to transmit messages that are "content free". ;-)
zenhkim 5 years ago
Thanks! Where is the on/off switch on my brain? I think I accidentally clicked it.
blogagog 5 years ago
MORE:
Finally, I notice u still TALK about liberal bias in the media but STILL GIVE NO EXAMPLES
I found over a dozen examples of Fox News bias in the last few months just in my free time Don't believe me? Check out the FOX NEWS BIAS PLAYLIST LINK in the full description of this video
IF LIBERAL BIAS IS SO RAMPANT, WHERE'S YOUR LIST OF EXAMPLES FROM THE LAST FEW MONTHS?
Thx 4 discussing it :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
MORE:
In her next video, tho, she advocated the very flagging about which she had complained. Then, when I joined the conservative YouTube group and posted my criticism of Malkin's actions, they deleted almost all of my comments.
Regarding some of your other points, I'm not sure which video is my "first video" to which u refer or how stuff from Oct 3 would have been relevant. If you explain, I could respond.
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
blogagog,
I don't know who LGF is, but I was just personally shown that MICHELLE MALKIN IS A BIG HYPOCRITE. I subscribed to her YouTube channel months ago because I like getting opinions from all sides. As a subscriber, I saw her recent video, "YouTubeGoes Dhimmi," complaining about flagging of conservative videos and I even sent her a private message in support of her free speech (and a suggestion to allow comments on her videos)
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
I watched the first video where you seem to be angry that FOX allows Republicans to make their case, instead of just hearing from Democrats. BTW, why did you cut out the interview FOX did with Democrats on Oct 3, such as the one with John Kerry? Balanced coverage does indeed mean hearing from both sides...
blogagog 5 years ago
reply below
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
"You have a similar list from other media?"
That sounds like a job, and it's most of what right of center blogs expose every day. If you hit LGF, 24 hours won't go by without them posting an example. Same with Ms. Malkin. It's a good idea though, and I will start cataloging them, since I read those sites anyway.
blogagog 5 years ago
blogagog,
There is bias in everything put together by humans, but, if you forgive he violent analogy, comparing Fox News bias to bias in those other outlets is like comparing targeting civilians to collateral damage. It's a matter of intent.
Don't believe me? Check out the FOX NEWS BIAS PLAYLIST LINK in the full description of this video
Over a dozen examples from the last few months I found in my spare time
You have a similar list from other media?
Thx 4 feedback :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
I'm just agreeing with you madam.
blogagog 5 years ago
I'm with Jaquititi, TRUTH=propaganda. If FOX won't spin the news like CNN, BBC, ABC (Australia), CBC, or the NYT, how are we supposed to know what to think?
blogagog 5 years ago
Sorry I dont get any of those channells so your point is not valid.
Jaquitita 5 years ago
reply below
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
I hope it does. FOX = propaganda.
Jaquitita 5 years ago
Just that thought makes you so far left, you're a danger to anyone who loves freedom.
EvilMongrelMonkey 5 years ago
While this does has potential, I see a problem with its relieability. They can't completely exclude former spin/manipulations(google bombing, anyone?).
backup1723 5 years ago
Cont
Now, thats just fine if you know this and just use it for quick pre-checks (and do some checking yourself later), but the problem is that the vast majority of the population don't do any factchecking - meaning they just might accept what that predictor says as true, without any checking.
I guess the dangers of THAT are obvious to all of us.
OTOH, it will be fun to see how all those people who repeatedly contradict themselves (O'Liely, Bush&co) might fare with this ;-)
backup1723 5 years ago
re:CAN GOOGLE'S PROPOSED "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" DO THE JOB THAT JOURNALISTS SHOULD BE DOING? -we're long on "should be doing" in many areas -suggested replacement would be "are not doing"
their "job"!- that ship has largely sailed
their job has proven itself to be selling soap, cars, diapers, ect. -and clawing amongst themselves for market share toward the above goal
housebrand 5 years ago
this "device" would have a hard time w/ declarative statements that are not tied to background info e.g.
"I did not have sex w/ that woman"(the pause and then sez "Miss Lewinsky" might tie some background), or "Abramof never met ? in the White House" -at the time, inaccuracies in these statements were not provable -i bet it would choke on people w/ a speech impediment
housebrand 5 years ago
housebrand,
I agree. One big difference between Fox News and me: Fox News calls itself "fair and balanced" while I call myself LIBERALViewer
And, you are right that they're missing the more serious point/question:
CAN GOOGLE'S PROPOSED "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" DO THE JOB THAT JOURNALISTS SHOULD BE DOING?
Thx 4 bringing back focus :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
unfortunately, the use of bill o'reilly and ACLU in this clip -may- have changed the subject and clouded discussion of a possibly interesting app.-LV is not hiding "it's" leanings, and sniping righties may have been the point -i kinda hope not
housebrand 5 years ago
reply below
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
well99,
It's a 3 minute video, only room 4 one politico and 1 pundit in my narrative. To make my video, I needed a clip of a politician and pundit saying things false that could be corrected with an easy google search. I had Bush and O'Reilly clips that fit.
If you have other clips that fit, feel free to upload them
From your previous criticism I was expecting some claim of factual dishonesty on my part, BUT YOUR CRITICISM IS ALL OPINION, NO FACTS
Thx 4 your opinions ;-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
LiberalViewer, you could've done better. I'm being sincere.
You should have found actual innacuracies. Not opinions you disagree with.
For example, not everyone likes the ACLU. Your clip actually says that it's the indisputable TRUTH that the ACLU fights for freedom. I don't see it that way. I see the ACLU as a bigoted oppressive organization. You should have looked for things that weren't just opinions, but rather factual errors.
sloppyjoes7 5 years ago
sloppyjoes7,
Sorry, I DID find actual inaccuracies of FACT.
O'Reilly said the ACLU opposes all displays of religion on public property and "judgment based faith."
If you google "ACLU Fights for Christians," you'll find LITERALLY DOZENS OF EXAMPLES OF THE ACLU DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF CHRISTIANS TO SPEAK AS CHRISTIANS AND PRACTICE CHRISTIANITY
Many of these are "public displays" of "judgment based faith" that prove O'Reilly's statement a FALSE FACT
Thx 4 feedback :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
I'll find dozens of example of them protecting Christians. Yes. True. You're right.
But does that mean they DON'T oppose displays of religion on public property? I thought they did.
I also find that they are at least as judgmental as most religions. Their religion is secularism.
sloppyjoes7 5 years ago
sloppyjoes7,
Listen to the clip again. O'Reilly said the ACLU opposes "ALL displays of religion on public property." Thus, I prove O'Reilly's statement FALSE by showing MANY cases of the ACLU SUPPORTING DISPLAYS OF RELIGION ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
You're missing the correct distinction. The ACLU isnt for or against any religion; it opposes GOVERNMENT religion just as strongly as it fights for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
MORE:
Saying the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian is FALSE
Saying the ACLU is anti-GOVERNMENT religion is TRUE
That's why youre wrong to say the ACLU has a religion of "secularism." ACLU members are Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. They all just oppose GOVERNMENT religion
That's not "secularism" that's a basic American principle enshrined in the 1st Amendment
Thx 4 discussing it :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
"Saying the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian is FALSE"
You assert that the ACLU is not anti-Christian. You assert this as indisputable fact.
I dispute it.
Thus, we disagree. But you insist that when I say "The ACLU is anti-Christian," I'm not stating my opinion. Instead, you say I'm lying. When others disagree with you, you respond by calling them liars.
Argue ideas. Use evidence. But stop calling differing opinions "lies."
sloppyjoes7 5 years ago
sloppyjoes7,
Hold on, now! When did I ever say you were "lying?"
What I said was that O'Reilly statement was FACTUALLY FALSE when he said the ACLU opposes "ALL displays of religion on public property." I PROVED O'Reilly's statement FALSE by showing MANY cases of the ACLU SUPPORTING DISPLAYS OF RELIGION ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
MORE:
I understand well the difference between FACT and OPINION. I've been arguing about the ACLU online for many years now and I know the ACLU pretty well (see my profile). I've found that people who think the ACLU is anti-religion or anti-Christian usually misunderstand the ACLU.
The ACLU has certain policies. That's a FACT.
Based on those policies, the ACLU has taken positions in a lot of religion cases over the years. That's a FACT.
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
MORE:
When you analyze those FACTS (ie ACLU policy/positions), you find the ACLU ISNT FOR OR AGAINST ANY RELIGION; it opposes GOV religion just as strongly as it fights for INDIVIDUAL free exercise
Now if you think Christianity requires GOV endorsement (some people do; theyre entitled to their OPINION) then AND ONLY THEN does it make sense to say the ACLU's anti-Christian. Otherwise, saying the ACLU's anti-Christian is based on a misunderstanding of FACTS (ie ACLU policy/positions).
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
MORE:
Of course, our GOV is made up of INDIVIDUALS and reasonable people can disagree when INDIVIDUAL action becomes GOV endorsement. I disagreed with ACLU on the Good News Club case in the US Supreme Court, but that doesn't make the ACLU anti-religion. And, it's FALSE and UNFAIR to call people anti-Christian or anti-religion just because you disagree with them over where to draw the line on the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
MORE
Finally, as I said, ACLU members are Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. They can all come together at the ACLU because the ACLU IS RELIGION NEUTRAL. They can all come together at the ACLU because they all just oppose GOVERNMENT religion
Or, do you have FACT I don't know about? Do you have a case of the ACLU opposing religion that did not actually involve GOVERNMENT religion?
Thx 4 discussing it :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Here is a base assertion of mine; ALL GOVERMENTS SUPPORT ONE WORLDVIEW OR ANOTHER. Some specifically identify the religion they are based on. Some are loosely based on a religion. But to claim you can "remove religion from goverment" is absurd and impossible.
Atheism is a worldview. As is universalism. As is secularism. Every person and every group has a worldview. Call it "religion," a "set of morals," or call it "common sense." They're all the same in the end - they're what you BELIEVE.
sloppyjoes7 5 years ago
MORE:
And what the ACLU strives for is the elimination of fundamental Christian precepts from government. The ACLU might sometimes SETTLE for "equalizing" religions within goverment, (AKA reducing the relative influence of Christianity), but their eventual goal is removing religion from goverment. And they get to define "religion."
sloppyjoes7 5 years ago
three things, sj7:
1) you keep missing LV's emphasis on "ALL" in the statement that O'Reilly said the ACLU opposes "ALL displays of religion on public property." Even a single instance is sufficient to disprove that assertion.
MORE
kencomer 5 years ago
2) The establishment clause of the constitution says that all religion should be removed from government. The ACLU works to keep that true in the USA.
MORE
kencomer 5 years ago
3) I, for one, dislike fundamental Christian precepts to be IMPOSED on me by the government. I would feel the same about Muslim precepts. I could probably deal with Zen Buddhist precepts, but they just want to be left alone to bash each other in the search for enlightenment, which is a pretty noble goal even if they are sometimes silly in how they try to reach it.
kencomer 5 years ago
"The establishment clause of the constitution says that all religion should be removed from government."
Untrue and impossible. That was my point.
sloppyjoes7 5 years ago
Did you put up examples of both parties or different news agencies?Did you do google ACLU against Christians?
A liberal back in the day was open minded.Today that means my view and only my view is the truth.Dont matter which party.Your all the same.
Look up hubris on google.
well99 5 years ago
reply below
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Got a good laugh out of that, thanks for the vid. By the way zac118, check out the whistleblower clips, you might find out that FOX is registered at the FCC as an ENTERTAINMENT show, NOT NEWS. If you really care about the feelings of a propaganda machine like FAUX at a time like this, than you are either being paid by them, or you are terribly ignorant. ...or should I say, a dumbass??
chesterbstylin 5 years ago
well99,
If you're going to call me a "shill" and imply I "spin and distort facts" you could at least back it up with something, anything. Any specifics at all?
Otherwise, it just looks to me like a baseless attack...
Thx 4 the comment, tho :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Rhetoric.I'll stick to the old fashion way of researching it myself on the internet.If you and Google need to set up a partisan truth meter no thanks.
Both the right and left seem to feel the need to feed people their spin and distort facts to their cause.
This is just another video by a political shill.
The difference between a republican and a democrat is the spelling.
well99 5 years ago
reply below
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
i donno...i'll send this clip to fox news & see if they like the way you disect its news & whether they regard this as an infringement of their copyright property! dumbasss!
zac118 5 years ago
zac118,
Who are you calling a "dumbasss" and why? Nothing in your comment supports the "dumbass" remark, so I'm curious.
As for copyright infringemnet, there is a 4 factor test 4 FAIR USE that doesnt really provide clear answers, but, media analysis/criticism IS an area specifically covered.
Are u trying to give me legal advice? Are u a lawyer? I am...
Which is why I ask: Who are you calling a "dumbasss" and why?
Thx 4 feedback :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
zig-zag zac (aka dumbass) copyright infringement would have to show its use for "profit" & non-free-speech.
Here, it wasn't used for profit; satire is immuned under 2nd amendment.
dentalomental 5 years ago
Send it to them.. chances are, they will turn on you by copying porn over it or calling the FBI on the psycho crackpipe pot. Go WACO someplace else. Gee, clinton didn't go sue FOX for a hatchet job. BTW, think with the ratings tanking they can afford an attorney? Go console your pediphile mark foley and leave democracy alone, yea douchebag.
dentalomental 5 years ago
sorry, that was 1st not 2nd amendment.
1st is free speech.. 2nd? isn't that right for the NRA to use hummer piercing bullets to hunt republican lawyers in the state of texas?
dentalomental 5 years ago
"corporate journalism" is a paradox!
skinnychef 5 years ago
This is the best thing I've seen all night. hahaha. Hilarious and I can't wait. I hope the truth indicator" is exactly like the red screen and the little alien voice. I really like this, because I think ALL politicians are liars.
yosandy 5 years ago