Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Posted by dockside (My Page) on
Thu, Jun 28, 12 at 16:34

The Annenberg Foundation has determined that in ads paid for by conservatives groups, 85% of the money spent in the last year was spent on ads which contained misleading or false information. No progressive groups have purchased ads in this time period so no information is available for comparison purposes.

And, to think that there are a lot of people that believe the crap they hear because it was on TV and repeated over and over.

But, it's all good, I guess, if it insures Obama won't be re-elected.

Here is a link that might be useful: Misleading the public is o.k. if it defeats Obama


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

I wish that information was surprising. The same people that believe these ads are the Glenn Beck, Rush, and Laura Ingraham type listeners.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

"The American Future Fund and Americans For Prosperity both released ads hitting the Obama campaign with claims that have been debunked by numerous fact-checking organizations, as well as citing erroneous news reports that have since been withdrawn. The two Republican groups, which are expected to spend up to $8 million in battleground states, use many of the same statistics to make outsized claims about the administration's misuse of "billions" of stimulus dollars overseas."


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Dockside would you have started this thread if progressive groups had been included in the group with misleading ads. I know that I have seen multiple ads for Obama that contain inaccurate and misleading information. I don't think the problem is limited to the conservatives.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

jhug, I agree that both candidates use misleading info at times. I believe, however, we are discussing political ads by the new PACS basically created by the Citizens United decision.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Thu, Jun 28, 12 at 17:50

85% of Ads???
85% of repub politicians beat out the demos when it comes to misleading.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Sort of like..we've been listening to speech after speech by Obama claiming Obamacare is not a tax, and now we know it is. Misleading? LOL


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

if progressive groups had been included in the group with misleading ads.
I'm sure there eventually will be plenty but for the mean time or until you can gather some together this is the subject of this post. BADDD AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY! Bad old putty tat!


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Oh Mrs K when Mittens had to pay for Romney care he called them fees! Whatever you call them our part time ushers are happy!


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

I would have to concur with Vgkg... and add that half the time, they have no clue of that which they speak. It does the job intended, though... you can't argue with that. Beck, Limbaugh, and crew sure do talk up a storm about nothing good, keeping the nation divided by fear and paranoia.

85% might even be cutting some slack.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

It's a wierd way of designating the amount of ads with misleading information, but probably the only measureable way to show their impact. If they spent, altogether $100,000,000 on ads, and $85,000,000 of that was on two ads and the remaining $15 mil was on eight other ads, it shows the impact of the misleading info (which assumes that 2 of the ads were broadcast much more widely than the other 8), rather than saying that 20% of the ads produced were misleading.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Sidekicks being all the "????" and "!!!!" misleading threads here.

"Misleading" is putting it mildly.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

I don't have cable, nor do I watch much TV, so I rarely see any ads. Once in awhile I catch the radio, which seems mostly right wing, but sometimes I listen to NPR.

What I hear so much is how Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck are liars. Can someone here prove that? We already know NBC (MSNBC?) lies. But, is there a truly unbiased website out there that proves these lies?


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Houseful I think that is the problem. We are too often looking for who is going to tell us what is a lie and what is the truth. There are many sites which I am sure someone will post the links I do not feel like going out there to post them for you.

What I do is my own search and read I watch MSNBC and sometime CNN I love the Daily Show but since you do not have cable these are things you can watch segments and read online.

What I can say from my research there is no one place that you can go to that is going to be the 100% tell me what to think place to go.

It takes personal responsibility to find your answer.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Houseful, I don't think there is a single news "broadcaster" either on TV or the internet that provides totally unbiased reporting. I find it best to go to the source - either in print or video to see what really happened - not someone else's interpretation of what they think happened.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Can someone here prove that. Yes we have posted some of Glen beck most outlandish lies on here previously. His rally in Washington fabricated some doozies just about the Washington monument that were easy to point out as historically effed up.

Beck Complains That "Nobody" Is Looking To Recover The Fed's Profits. During a January interview with Sarah Palin, Beck discussed the Federal Reserve's 2009 profits, and claimed, "Exxon had their record profit a couple of years ago. It was $45 billion. The Fed just had record profit, over $50 billion. No one's having hearings on the Fed. Nobody is looking for a windfall profit tax on the Fed. We can't even open the Fed's books." [Fox News, Glenn Beck,1/13/10, via Nexis]

REALITY: The Fed "Returns Its Profits To The Treasury." The Washington Post reported that the Federal Reserve "will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009 ... the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury." The Post added that these profits "are good news for the federal budget and a sign that the Fed has been successful, at least so far, in protecting taxpayers as it intervenes in the economy -- though there remains a risk of significant losses in the future if the Fed sells some of its investments or loses money on its stakes in bailed-out firms." [The Washington Post, 1/12/10]

No. 14 Tax Dollars Funded An Art Exhibit Actually Paid For By Private Donors

BECK: "And Then You Have The Tax Dollars Funding This Wonderful Art Display. It's Christmas At The Smithsonian." Beck said of an exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, which is titled "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture":

Perfect storm. Eroding values. Hard work, sacrifice, thrift, honor, truth, God. As a nation born out of faith in God, how's that going today, huh? Twenty-five percent of those under 30 years of age describe their religion as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. Now, as you get older, it goes down. Thirty to 40 years old, only 19 percent. Ages 40 to 50, 15 percent. If you're over 60, less than 10 percent say that.

And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian. Here's this wonderful -- oh, look, it's Jesus with ants on him. They describe it as the first major exhibition to focus on the sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.

What? You got to be kidding me, right? What does this have to do with the birth of the baby Jesus, and why is he now covered in ants? Whose values are these? And you wonder why there's the breakdown of the family. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/30/10]
REALITY: Smithsonian "Receives Public Funds" But "Does Not Use That Money For Exhibitions." The Washington Post reported:

The exhibition, which opened Oct. 30, was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues.

[...]

As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions. [The Washington Post, 11/30/10]

No. 10 "Every Single American Who Invests" Earns More Than $250,000 Per Year

BECK: President Obama Proposed To Increase The Capital Gains Tax On "Every Single American Who Invests." Beck falsely said that Obama "sought to raise the capital gains tax, which affects every single American who invests, which -- I know that sounds like the big Wall Street fat cats, but if you have a 401(k), that would be you." [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 4/7/10]

REALITY: Obama Proposed Capital Gains Increase Only On "Upper-Income" Earners. The White House budget for fiscal year 2011 called for reinstating the 20 percent capital gains tax rate only on families with income greater than $250,000 and on individuals with income greater than $200,000. [Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011]

This is my favorite misrepresentation makes me want to smack the excrement head.

Soros Was Responsible For "Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager"

BECK: "Soros Was Asked If He Felt Guilt At All About Taking The Property From The Jews As A Teenager. He Responded, No." From Glenn Beck:

BECK: There's a lot of meat here that I need you to do your own homework on and learn the truth yourself. But we want to find out a little bit more about him and who he is and where did he come from.

His childhood is shocking, traumatic. He grew up in Nazi Europe. Fourteen years old, he had to help the government confiscate the lands of his fellow Jewish friends and neighbors. He didn't grow up in a Jewish household. His mother was a strong anti-Semite -- George Soros' words, not mine.

But when he had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors who were being sent to the gas chambers, I can't imagine what that would do to a teenager, or anybody, an adult. Well, what did it do to George Soros? In an interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilt at all about taking the property from the Jews as a teenager. He responded, no. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 11/9/10]
REALITY: Soros Said He "Had No Role In Taking Away That Property." In an interview with Kroft, Soros explained that he felt no guilt because he "had no role in taking away that property":

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt. [CBS, 60 Minutes,12/20/98, via Nexis]
REALITY: Biographer Reported Soros "Collaborated With No One." In Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire -- a book cited by Beck during the program -- Michael T. Kaufman detailed Soros' reaction during the interview, as well as Soros' actions in Nazi-occupied Hungary:

While he was living with Baumbach as Sandor Kiss, an event occurred that more than a half a century later would become the basis of charges that George Soros, the international financier and billionaire, had somehow collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of his homeland and had exploited his fellow Jews. The issue was raised in a bizarre television profile and interview of Soros aired on the CBS television program 60 Minutes in December of 1998. In the segment, Steve Kroft, the interviewer, noted with prosecutorial gusto that George's father had "bribed a government official to swear that you were his godson," and added that this survival strategy "carried a heavy price tag." For, he continued, "as hundreds of thousands of Jews were being shipped off to the Nazi death camps, a thirteen-year-old George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his rounds, confiscating property from the Jews." Visibly dumbfounded by the line of questioning, Soros could only manage to say that he had no role in the seizure of property and was merely a spectator. To underscore Kroft's point, film footage showed masses of Hungarian Jews being led away at gunpoint.

This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his "godson" behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfeld's staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss. Among his practical concerns was to make sure that no one saw him pee. [Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, Page 37]

Limbaugh often just misrepresents or tries to get you to imagine if you will.
He tried to get us to imagine that Deepwater Oil spill may have been explosives set by eco terrorist environmentalists that was a good one.
That The Sierra Club & groups like it forced deep water drilling.

A quote from The blubbering loon.

""If you [donate to the Hatian Relief Fund], you’ll probably just end up on an Obama campaign mailing list ��" and a big chunk of your donation will get siphoned off by government bureaucrats."

Regarding 911

Radio host Rush Limbaugh lied about a recently released report by the 9-11 Commission: He falsely claimed that the report confirms Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta may have met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in April 2001. Limbaugh directly contradicted the report while purporting to summarize it.

From the June 17 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The [9-11 Commission] report said that Mohamed Atta did meet with an Iraqi Intelligence Agency, or agent, in Prague on April 9th of 2001. We've known this for a long time.
From the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement 16":

We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available -- including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting -- we do not believe that such a meeting occurred.

These were never little oopps sorry retraction pieces like you see on other stations they are grand ho ho ho hee hee he haw haw so the eff what blubbers when caught.

Limbaugh wrong on minimum wage -- again
August 13, 2004 5:05 pm ET
0 Comments

On the August 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh overstated and once again misrepresented the current federal minimum wage. He claimed that "It's -- whatever it is, six and a quarter, seven bucks an hour," adding that "[t]he minimum wage has gotten so high that it's paying people that are not skilled to do anything."

In reality, the current federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, where it has stood for the past seven years. That's the second-longest span of time that the minimum wage has gone unchanged since its implementation in 1938, according to an article by the Economic Policy Institute.

From the August 12 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The minimum wage has gotten so high that it's paying people that are not skilled to do anything. ... It's -- whatever it is, six and a quarter, seven bucks an hour, an hour, going to be there soon. ... I don't want some well intentioned do-gooder that doesn't even know me, who's only interested in making himself feel better, because he thinks he's done something, come along and give me a mediocre, modest, you know, chump change raise, called the minimum wage, and have him feel good about himself, while I'm sitting here still in the midst of a struggle. ... No, thank you. I don't want to be imprisoned by minimum wage. ... Here, take the minimum wage. Vote for us, we'll raise it in a couple years, as long as the rascally Republicans don't stand in our way. They hate you. But we love you. Now go ahead, eat your rice.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, the value of the $5.15 minimum wage in real dollars was lower in 2003 than in all but three years since 1960; because the minimum wage remains unchanged in 2004, it is now worth even less relative to its value in other years. At the current federal minimum wage, a full-time worker earns approximately $10,712 a year.

On April 29, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, Limbaugh claimed that "75 percent of the people earning minimum wage" are teenagers; in reality, only 32 percent are.

I have no idea about hannity I never have watched or listened to him.

I have never know Beck to make a retraction I've listened to a number of retractions on other news stations.
I'm sure someone else will post something like this in another year & I won't mind then doing the work they could have done themselves by just looking it up on various google sites.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Thanks, Labrea. I'll continue reading up on all this.

I have no problem doing research myself, but most of us have limited time and if someone has already researched something, is it that much of a problem to share?


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Of course not nor doI believe it will enlighten anyone!


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

All Ads are misleading and none tell whole truth.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

I have no problem doing research myself, but most of us have limited time and if someone has already researched something, is it that much of a problem to share?

houseful, I said do your own research because what my research or anyone else is the same as a misleading ad. You come to conclusion on what you find. Not what someone say is true.

I have seen topics you have started it is what you found because it is what draws you to your ideas.

Are you the one that home school? I do not remember.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

"Are you the one that home school? I do not remember"

Feigning naivete is very unbecoming and so transparent.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Here in CO with the swing state onslaught of TV attack ads, the ones we're currently seeing ad nauseum are -

from the Romney side, several out beating to death the 'the private sector is doing fine" excerpted-out-of-context line

from the Obama side, several out with Romney/governor/Massachusetts being near the bottom in job creation, higher taxes, state debt, and so on.

We're talking dueling ads every commercial break.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Absolutely, David.

An inane topic for discussion.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

Since Wed, after the decision from The Supreme C and after House voted the Contempt of Congress against Holder I have spent all my free time watching CNN, MSNBC, Rachael Maddow,
Bill Maher, Brian Williams, ABC, CBS, FOX, Wolff Blitzer and what others there were.

I'm not going to post links. This is just my observation.
I am saddened and nearly sick that we have no avenue for fair and balanced coverage anywhere on TV.

The only anchor I found that came close to being neutral was Brian Williams. His contributors, not so much.

Rachael Maddow and Bill Maher spew vile hatred toward Republicans as do all their guest.
I wasn't just uncomfortable as a Republican, I was uncomfortable as a human being that there is so much ugliness directed at others, regardless of politics on those two shows.

Fox News....I was exhausted after an hour of Health & Comtempt.
I think Fox does bring forth information sometimes that we shouldn't sweep under the rug but there is no such thing as fair and balanced.
Fox is biased.
They are all biased.
There is nothing we can do about the media obviously because human nature tells us if the info sides with our belief then it gets a pass but there is something we can do as human beings about the ugliness towards others because of their belief.

Listen to the language....to the contempt and to the laughter. If you are comfortable with it then thats who you are.

I am still reeling from Bill Maher's show which I had never watched before.
I felt dirty and I didn't give him an inch for being a comedian.
I am a Republican but in my own country I should be protected from the hate and the spewing vile I heard .
Turn it off is everyone's option but I was trying to figure out the difference of why it is ok for the prejudice against a political belief but it would not be ok if the prejudice was against color.

My political view is my color. That is who I am. I am a conservative in principals and in my life style.
Does anyone have the right to bad mouth me because of these views.
After I came away from the TV media I felt like it wouldn't be too much longer until Conservative people like me will have to hide to keep from being stoned( a little ov th top).

Sometimes HT posters can get ugly but we forget....behind that Democrat or Ind or Rep is a real person....at home, ..believing they are right in their belief and just wanting a better America.


 o
RE: Study: 85% of Money spent by conservaties on misleading ads

CW, I know exactly what you mean. We watch NBC in the am and Fox in the pm--when we watch the news at all.

It's just too frustrating.

Your last paragraph is a nice sentiment, especially because I believe you are being sincere. :-)


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here