Posted on 10/25/2009 8:11:18 PM PDT by Bluestateredman
It is becoming more obvious that the articles linked by Yahoo! are planted by the government. I don't know if I should keep my tinfoil hat on or take it off while I post this. Millions of Americans think Yahoo! is real news.
YES
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the entire MSM has been indistinguishable from a government-sponsored ministry of information since about 1977. At least when Democrats are in control.
I am quite sure that Yahoo subscribes to a typical News agency, but all are far left.
I don’t know if I should keep my tinfoil hat on or take it off while I post this.
The phrase “tinfoil hat” is part of the coverup.
You can control the content of your yahoo page. If you don’t like the content, just delete the block and choose another.
“Obama want’s moms to go back to school.”
Yeah...mom’s are uneducated and wouldn’t understand the ad if not for it been written like a grade skool kid.
I sent the ad sponsor a note and let them know I didn’t give a sh*t WHAT Obama “wants”.
I’ve seen other ads about what “Obama wants” on yahoo. One for a mortgage company offering mortgages with “less documentation”. Isn’t that how we got into this mess in the first place?
You must provide evidence and examples before we can tackle it. We can’t just jump on it like Debka Files.
Try Googling something negative about Obama. Then go to Ask.com and try the same query.
More times than not you will get a different slant than on Google - more fair and balanced.
*Millions of Americans think Yahoo! is real news.*
Millions of Americans are so dumb they deserve to read that garbage and whatever happens to them at the end of whatever road they get lead down. Seriously.
You need to save yourself and quickly enroll in the new Obama program of renewing yourself in the image of the new Fuhrer, our mulatto messiah saviour before it is too late...
My link to Yahoo is adjusted to ONLY the mail portion, so I have to skip the ALL-AP headlines.
Everytime I see Obama’s ugly face I just want to take a dump...
I’ve noticed that too, lately.
However, Yahoo! is more to the right/objective than Google. If I recall correctly, both Google and Yahoo! donated to the Bush and Kerry campaigns in ‘04, but Yahoo! gave more to Bush than to Kerry, whereas Google gave $3 to Kerry for every $1 that they donated to Bush.
You all are on to something, but it is considerably worse than you might suspect.
Yahoo doesn’t have reporters; nearly all of the articles you read on Yahoo are from the newswires, esp. AP. The AP also supplies MSN.com, etc, newsfeeders, and many stories in MSM come AP as well. For example, there’s an article in the NYT about 6 people being poisoned at Harvard. The exact same article— same text, everything— appears on Yahoo, because it comes from the AP. But if you didn’t know it was from the same source (and most people don’t) you’ll think that the story has had multiple levels of verification. In fact, it’s had none.
So millions of people are getting their news from different sources that ultimately get it from the same source.
What is the nature of this source? As a random example, take the editor of National Reporting, Sara Nordgren: she spent 14 years prior writing about “children and family issues.”
Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but you see how there might possibly be some bias. Ok, here’s a cut and paste of everyone on AP’s website under National Reporting:
AP’s National Reporting Team is a group of Natonal Beat Reporters
New York:
Sarah Nordgren - Editor
David Crary - National Writer, Family and Relationships
Rachel Zoll - National Writer, Religion
Deborah Hastings - National Writer, Justice/Legal
Chicago:
Martha Irvine - National Writer, Young Readers
Denver:
Eric Gorski - National Writer, Religion
Philadelphia:
Jesse Washington - National Writer, Race Relations
Raleigh, N.C.:
Justin Pope - National Writer, Higher Education
http://www.ap.org/pages/contact/address/national.html
The “natonal” typo is theirs, not mine.
So you can see that it’s not that any single person is biased or not, but that there exists a culture, a philosophy, in the newsroom that is going to come out in reporting.
If AP was just another news source, like the NYT, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. But the AP is both highly pervasive, and also generally unknown. You read it in the Post, you think it’s from the Post. You see a “similar” story nine other times, and you think enough people aer saying the same thing, it must be true.
When Bush was in office it was just the opposite.
And now it's Obama's turn to take advantage of the propaganda machine that's goes by the name of the MSM.
I hang out at gardenweb.com alot. Two days ago I noticed a link under “what’s new at garden web”. “Have a question about health-care reform? Ask the White House!”
The link takes you to Michelle. Who is paying for this? Our taxes? A lobbyist? This looks like more propaganda. But is it legal?
I had planned on writing a thread about this, but
was afraid my Obamanoia was getting the best of me.
I was out at my mon’s house doing some repair work
and also watching some TV, which I don’t have at home.
A car commercial comes on, two guys talking about a car
then the punch line came up, “Change is Good!”.
Then I realized it was a GM commercial. Watching
further I saw another one with a like theme.
It was just spooky. The little lines were just
so like lines from the Obama campaign, that I
felt like I was watching 1984. Maybe it was because
I don’t normally watch but those blurbs were so
obviously taken from the Obama lexicon that I
felt as though I had fallen through the political
“looking glass”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.