Fox News Basks in its Own Ignorance

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]

“â?¦we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. â?¦ The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our websiteâ?¦ TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.â?? - See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com”

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/11/08/the-real-news-vs-the-real-truth/

LOL!!!

42

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia

[/quote]

Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page?

43

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia [/quote]

Paul Jay is a Canadian progressive documentary film maker who admits that his network is biased.

The mission statement of TRNN is news without “government and corporate spin”. So, Mr. Jay rejects the spin of others and relies upon his own bias to spin the news his way.

Spin and bias is fine as long as it isn’t influenced by evil corporations, or the government?

From the wiki: “The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations”

What constitutes a “supporter”? Anything that is not a corporation or a government?

44

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]

“â?¦we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. â?¦ The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our websiteâ?¦ TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.â?? - See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com”

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/11/08/the-real-news-vs-the-real-truth/

LOL!!![/quote]

So… 750k in seed money from the same people that fund think tanks and leftist institutions, and then the other 66% from smaller foundations and “large donor individuals”.

(I just got sucked into MacArthur’s 990 for like the last 20 mins lol.)

But let’s have a little fun…

AT the bottom of darealznewz.omg page: RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc.

http://therealnews.com/t2/about-us/mission

hmmm…

http://opencorporates.com/companies/ca/4175956
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=4175956

So, it is a corporation itself… Not that this is surprising or damning, but does that mean Zep hates them, because they are what he hates, a corporate news source?

45

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]

“Ã?¢?Ã?¦we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. Ã?¢?Ã?¦ The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our websiteÃ?¢?Ã?¦ TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.Ã?¢?? - See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com”

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/11/08/the-real-news-vs-the-real-truth/

LOL!!![/quote]

So… 750k in seed money from the same people that fund think tanks and leftist institutions, and then the other 66% from smaller foundations and “large donor individuals”.

(I just got sucked into MacArthur’s 990 for like the last 20 mins lol.)

But let’s have a little fun…

AT the bottom of darealznewz.omg page: RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc.

http://therealnews.com/t2/about-us/mission

hmmm…

http://opencorporates.com/companies/ca/4175956
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=4175956

So, it is a corporation itself… Not that this is surprising or damning, but does that mean Zep hates them, because they are what he hates, a corporate news source?

[/quote]

I think you just ruined his day.

46

IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html

Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…

Anywho

Here is the 990 for them

https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf

Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)

Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer.

47

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html

Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…

Anywho

Here is the 990 for them

https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf

Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)

Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer. [/quote]
Hmmm so you can’t prove that these are donations from viewers who think they do important wok so you assume it’s corporate or government?

48

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]

“Ã?¢?Ã?¦we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. Ã?¢?Ã?¦ The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our websiteÃ?¢?Ã?¦ TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.Ã?¢?? - See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com”

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/11/08/the-real-news-vs-the-real-truth/

LOL!!![/quote]

So… 750k in seed money from the same people that fund think tanks and leftist institutions, and then the other 66% from smaller foundations and “large donor individuals”.

(I just got sucked into MacArthur’s 990 for like the last 20 mins lol.)

But let’s have a little fun…

AT the bottom of darealznewz.omg page: RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc.

http://therealnews.com/t2/about-us/mission

hmmm…

http://opencorporates.com/companies/ca/4175956
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=4175956

So, it is a corporation itself… Not that this is surprising or damning, but does that mean Zep hates them, because they are what he hates, a corporate news source?

[/quote]
They may have corporated for tax reasons but are not controlled by or owned major corporations. There donations come from concerned viewers not advertising from corporations or government funding. That is the difference. If you can prove that they take advertising dollars then I will eat crow.

49

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]

“Ã?¢?Ã?¦we have received money from three corporate foundations. In 2005, we received $250,000 from the MacArthur Foundation. The same year we received $100,000 from Ford Foundation. Ã?¢?Ã?¦ The only other corporate foundation grant we received was $250,000 from the Knight Foundation in 2010 for improving our websiteÃ?¢?Ã?¦ TRNN funding comes from two primary sources. About a third from small donors, and the balance from small family foundations or large donor individuals.Ã?¢?? - See more at: Boilingfrogspost.com”

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/11/08/the-real-news-vs-the-real-truth/

LOL!!![/quote]

So… 750k in seed money from the same people that fund think tanks and leftist institutions, and then the other 66% from smaller foundations and “large donor individuals”.

(I just got sucked into MacArthur’s 990 for like the last 20 mins lol.)

But let’s have a little fun…

AT the bottom of darealznewz.omg page: RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc.

http://therealnews.com/t2/about-us/mission

hmmm…

http://opencorporates.com/companies/ca/4175956
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=4175956

So, it is a corporation itself… Not that this is surprising or damning, but does that mean Zep hates them, because they are what he hates, a corporate news source?

[/quote]
You do not understand the fundamentals of corporate owned.

50

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia

[/quote]

Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page? [/quote]
Yes, what does it prove?

The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations.

Can you find these claims on any of the other major news outlets? L.A.Times, Chicago Tribune, NYTImes, etc.?

51

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html

Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…

Anywho

Here is the 990 for them

https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf

Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)

Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer. [/quote]
Hmmm so you can’t prove that these are donations from viewers who think they do important wok so you assume it’s corporate or government?[/quote]

And you assume that mysterious $4 million came from individuals. Which is more likely, given the previous breakdown of donations?

LMAO - you have spent 5 years whining and crying against the evils of corporate media control, and the one news source you have quoted ad nauseum is…wait for it…a CORPORATION!!!

There is fail. There is epic fail. Then there is your boot-licking, blind-faith, “nyah-nyah-nyah I can’t hear you” fail.

And your completely oblivious to it all.

52

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html

Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…

Anywho

Here is the 990 for them

https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf

Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)

Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer. [/quote]
Hmmm so you can’t prove that these are donations from viewers who think they do important wok so you assume it’s corporate or government?[/quote]

I am not “assuming” anything. I’m speculating that your pet project isn’t as wonderful and innocent as you try and proclaim. It is sort of my job to be skeptical of assertions…

First off, they themselves have admitted to corporate funding, only naming names of 750k of it. And that a third of their yearly funding comes from corporations formed as family foundations. So this lends to the reasonable conclusion that a 4m spike in contributions didn’t come from viewers.

There is also the fact that the donation revenue trend is odd to say the least. Network launched in 2007, yet in 2010 it got a 4m spike in contributions? If this was an audit, this would be a massive red flag.

We are talking what, a 550% increase in donations in one year, 3 years after the launch of the network… Something isn’t jiving. Either they got a huge donation from an estate, or someone like Soro’s, or the whole “funding by users like you” isn’t true, at least in 2010…

53

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

You do not understand the fundamentals of corporate owned.[/quote]

lol, nope… All these letters after my name are so confusing…

54

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia

[/quote]

Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page? [/quote]
Yes, what does it prove?

The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations.

Can you find these claims on any of the other major news outlets? L.A.Times, Chicago Tribune, NYTImes, etc.?[/quote]

Like 98% of the references are, “The Real New.” Their wiki page isn’t even bias free.

55

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html

Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…

Anywho

Here is the 990 for them

https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf

Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)

Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer. [/quote]
Hmmm so you can’t prove that these are donations from viewers who think they do important wok so you assume it’s corporate or government?[/quote]

And you assume that mysterious $4 million came from individuals. Which is more likely, given the previous breakdown of donations?

LMAO - you have spent 5 years whining and crying against the evils of corporate media control, and the one news source you have quoted ad nauseum is…wait for it…a CORPORATION!!!

There is fail. There is epic fail. Then there is your boot-licking, blind-faith, “nyah-nyah-nyah I can’t hear you” fail.

And your completely oblivious to it all.

[/quote]

You do not understand the fundamentals of corporate control over the media. The Real News takes no corporate funding or government funding. If you really believe that the donations are from advertising or government sources where is the proof?

56

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia

[/quote]

Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page? [/quote]
Yes, what does it prove?

The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations.

Can you find these claims on any of the other major news outlets? L.A.Times, Chicago Tribune, NYTImes, etc.?[/quote]

Like 98% of the references are, “The Real New.” Their wiki page isn’t even bias free.[/quote]
Where is the sources of corporate advertising or government funding? Everyone has some level of bias. I have a bias towards the people. What benefits the whole. You can have a bias towards the truth. So are biases inherently bad?

57

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
IWT.TV inc is “Independent World Television, Inc” in the US.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/07/int05027.html

Paul Jay is the dude at the reigns of all this…

Anywho

Here is the 990 for them

https://bulk.resource.org/irs.gov/eo/2011_11_EO/01-0808098_990_201012.pdf

Schedule A, PArt II, Section A - Interesting little bump in contributions, lol (page 15 of the pdf)

Unfortunately they don’t have to list major donors… But I’m pretty sure that extra 4m didn’t come from Johnny internet video viewer. [/quote]
Hmmm so you can’t prove that these are donations from viewers who think they do important wok so you assume it’s corporate or government?[/quote]

I am not “assuming” anything. I’m speculating that your pet project isn’t as wonderful and innocent as you try and proclaim. It is sort of my job to be skeptical of assertions…

First off, they themselves have admitted to corporate funding, only naming names of 750k of it. And that a third of their yearly funding comes from corporations formed as family foundations. So this lends to the reasonable conclusion that a 4m spike in contributions didn’t come from viewers.

There is also the fact that the donation revenue trend is odd to say the least. Network launched in 2007, yet in 2010 it got a 4m spike in contributions? If this was an audit, this would be a massive red flag.

We are talking what, a 550% increase in donations in one year, 3 years after the launch of the network… Something isn’t jiving. Either they got a huge donation from an estate, or someone like Soro’s, or the whole “funding by users like you” isn’t true, at least in 2010…

[/quote]
They haven’t accepted corporate advertising or government funding of any source. You don’t have any proof just shear speculation.

58

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia

[/quote]

Did you look at the reference list on the wiki page? [/quote]
Yes, what does it prove?

The Real News relies exclusively on donations by supporters, and does not accept funding from advertising, government, or corporations.

Can you find these claims on any of the other major news outlets? L.A.Times, Chicago Tribune, NYTImes, etc.?[/quote]

Like 98% of the references are, “The Real New.” Their wiki page isn’t even bias free.[/quote]
Where is the sources of corporate advertising or government funding? Everyone has some level of bias. I have a bias towards the people. What benefits the whole. You can have a bias towards the truth. So are biases inherently bad?[/quote]

This is what you and Beans were talking about.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

So you want me to prove that something doesn’t exist?[/quote]

No. I’ll ask my question again, as it can’t get any clearer:

Can you verify that the two “new sources” you listed do not receive corporate funding?

[quote]You believe they are controlled by corporations then prove it. Until you can then it doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

You are assuming something that isn’t true. I never used the word “control”. I simply asked if you can verify if those organizations di or did not receive corporate funding.

And no, your logical fallacy doesn’t pass the sniff test. First off, I made no claims, I have no burden of proof to prove anything. You made a claim, I asked for clarification…[/quote]
I know this won’t be enough but here goes, The Real News Network - Wikipedia

[/quote]

You referenced Wikipedia as verification that, “The Real News,” isn’t funded by corporations. The Wikipedia article reference (got it’s information) from, “The Real News.”

You don’t see the conflict there?

59

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You don’t see the conflict there?
[/quote]

haha, Can’t wait to see him not realize he spent pages arguing against conflict of interest, only to support one here…

60

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
They haven’t accepted corporate advertising or government funding of any source.[/quote]

Please prove your assertion.

I said I was speculating, flat out said it. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.