It is a website dedicated to debunking the myths, lies, and falsehoods spread by the Republican party, with cited sources explaining why each one is wrong.
[url]http://www.attackwatch.com/[/url]
It appears to be relatively unbiased, and appears to be made only with the intention of clearing the air of the various rumors and falsehoods you've likely heard Tea Party leaders, congressmen, and presidential candidates spewing.
It clears up issues such as Obama's views on gun control, Rick Perry's lie about job growth, et cetera.
I know this isn't much of a news page, but I will be updating it as sources appear.
Articles include:
[URL="http://www.attackwatch.com/news-feed-entry/rick-perrys-massive-jobs-lie"]Rick Perry's lie about job growth[/URL]
[URL="http://www.attackwatch.com/news-feed-entry/romneys-job-chart-shows-flawed-understanding-of-the-facts"]Romney blaming Obama for things that occurred during the Bush presidency[/URL]
[URL="http://www.attackwatch.com/news-feed-entry/glenn-beck-twists-the-facts-on-israel"]Glenn Beck's completely false allegations that Obama betrayed Israel [no surprise][/URL]
[URL="http://www.attackwatch.com/attack-files-entry/obama-second-amendment/"]Debunking the false claims on Obama's views on gun control[/URL]
[URL="http://www.attackwatch.com/attack-files-entry/obama-health-coverage/"]The [B][I][U]blatant[/U][/I][/B] lies spread about "Obamacare"[/URL]
and many more
It's all a very fascinating read
Sources:
[QUOTE=The Hill]The Obama campaign is launching a new website to handle misinformation against President Obama.
In an email, Obama's reelection campaign manager, Jim Messina, announced the formation of AttackWatch.com.
"Forming the first line of defense against a barrage of misinformation won't be easy," Messina wrote in a fundraising email to campaign supporters. "Our success will depend on a team of researchers and writers to stay on the lookout for false claims about the President and his record, bring you the facts, and hold our opposition accountable."
As an example, Messina mentioned a claim by presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) that Obama was president when the Troubled Asset Relief Program was passed into law.
Messina said the site will be running from now through November 2012.
"So if you're worried about the negativity we're seeing from the other side -- and you should be -- this is your chance to help spread the truth," Messina added in the email. "From now through November 2012, AttackWatch.com will provide a home for accurate information, a forum for you to report attacks and tools to fight back, and a news feed to track the latest events as they happen."
The Obama administration has had to deal with aggressive attacks throughout his time in office. Obama released a copy of his long-form birth certificate earlier this year after polls showed an increasing number of Americans did not know whether Obama was born in the U.S. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/181301-obama-campaign-launches-website-to-fight-misinformation[/url]
[QUOTE=Politico]The Obama campaign pioneered a form of webby rapid response last cycle, using Google ads and "Fight the Smears" blog items to push back both on blatant smears and on policy arguments they chose to label smears.
A glossy new site on the same model just launched at AttackWatch.com, full of jabs back at Republican candidates and pundits.
The site has the look and feel of familiar Internet fact-checking sites like Snopes and even Politifact, and it -- wisely -- links out for items, to sources from the professional fact checking sites to Media Matters. It also has tools making it easy to submit, for instance, chain emails, and to blast out the campaign's responses.
The site is, among other things, a mark of why it's nice to have such a head start.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0911/Obama_campaigns_Attack_Watch_defends_attacks.html?showall[/url]
I think it is a good aggressive start for Obama's administration, but I think it should have come a couple of years ago.
No Fox News-watching American far-right nutjob is going to believe any of this, though.
Hopefully word of this will spread, and it will help calm the current political climate, and stop people from believing the biased BS that comes from 1 sided politicians.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;32275376]1 sided politicians.[/QUOTE]
Bit redundant there.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;32275330]No Fox News-watching American far-right nutjob is going to believe any of this, though.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, for the most part the Fox-watching crowd will never see or hear any of the debunking.
IMO it's kind of unnecessary as well, Politifact remains the gold standard of fact-checking. They don't call Obama out on a whole lot of issues, but there are a few, and I'm sure his campaign's website is going to be entirely one-sided.
I can't help but laugh at the blood red tint of all the pictures.
[img]http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/AW_140_Bolton.jpg[/img]
[quote]It appears to be largely unbiased, and appears to be made only with the intention of clearing the air of the various rumors and falsehoods you've likely heard Tea Party leaders, congressmen, and presidential candidates spewing.[/quote]
This is a website that is entirely dedicated to finding facts to debunk the claims of one side in an argument. This is actually factual bias. An unbiased source would also debunk claims by Obama and his administration, as Politifact does, as Used Car Salesman said. Also, Boba, I agree on the pictures. That is totally over the top.
Also, this website was launched by his election PAC, not his administration. Tax dollars were not spent on this.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;32275410]Bit redundant there.[/QUOTE]
hopefully this will change that to where they will actually [i]consider[/i] ideas and bills from the other party and not constantly be at war with eachother.
I'm spreading the word.
I like it.
You can expect to see many articles of Perry and Bachmann on this site.
Thought it was a site for attacks.....
It's down?
Well I was checkin out Obama's long form birth certificate and I notice that his father was 25 at the time, and his mother was 18.
Was he conceived when she was 17? If so, what a playa. :v:
[QUOTE=Occlusion;32276060]It's down?[/QUOTE]
Nah it's just a little slow
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;32275555]This is a website that is entirely dedicated to finding facts to debunk the claims of one side in an argument. This is actually factual bias. An unbiased source would also debunk claims by Obama and his administration, as Politifact does, as Used Car Salesman said. Also, Boba, I agree on the pictures. That is totally over the top.
Also, this website was launched by his election PAC, not his administration. Tax dollars were not spent on this.[/QUOTE]
You are correct. I changed "largely unbiased" to "relatively unbiased"
It is unfortunately too late to edit the title.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;32275555]This is a website that is entirely dedicated to finding facts to debunk the claims of one side in an argument. This is actually factual bias. An unbiased source would also debunk claims by Obama and his administration, as Politifact does, as Used Car Salesman said. Also, Boba, I agree on the pictures. That is totally over the top.[/QUOTE]
Actually factual bias just pertains to what sources of information are used, whether or not these sources can be verified, and general quality of the content presented (or, in other words, how well-worded it is and how much bias, if any, is contained in how it is worded). And whether or not it broadly covers a wide variety of topics.
Which, upon a fairly quick examination, the sources seem trustworthy and impeccable (if they aren't directly citing links to bills and legal documents or transcripts, etc., then it's usually news articles from Media Matters), the issues are made short and sweet with the bulk of information resting in cited sources, and they cover nearly every political topic imaginable- from gun control and health care to immigration and economics. The site itself is not defending Obama, it's simply distinguishing fact from fiction when it comes to the claims being tossed around by the Republican contenders about these said topics.
[editline]13th September 2011[/editline]
This is probably one of the most original ideas a politician has come up with in recent times. It certainly acts as a very useful and powerful resource of information.
You know, they probably would get more fans and seem less ominous / government-control-y if they didn't have a black background, black and white silhouettes of the icons, red tints over many pictures, and calling these "attacks" (however justified they may be).
They didn't really hire the best website designers.
Then again, it's still better than the competition...
A while back I checked out one of those "9/12" project websites and saw
a) Glenn Beck with his back towards the camera looking out ominously towards the Capitol Building, on a shadowy balcony
b) a motherfucking giant snake tangling itself in the Capitol Building
Seriously, not even Slytherin would be that straight forward.
They've changed the site, and I have a picture, but it's on another computer. Oh well, later.
Was no one else a little freaked out a while ago when the whole health care thing had just come up and there were suggestions from democrats (I'm not sure if they were directly involved with Obama or the Whitehorse) That there should be an organization that either licences or monitors and punishes blogs and other Internet and media sources that published statements regarding healthcare (and other government initiatives) which were unfavourable, or the government considered to be false.
I know many of you would probably support such a thing because it would at the time come to the defence of an issue you support, but the whole idea of a government agency responsible for punishing media outlets which spread dissenting ideas is a rather totalitarian one.
It sounds more like something you would hear about in China than in the west.
[QUOTE=Novistador;32276647]Was no one else a little freaked out a while ago when the whole health care thing had just come up and there were suggestions from democrats (I'm not sure if they were directly involved with Obama or the Whitehorse) That there should be an organization that either licences or monitors and punishes blogs and other Internet and media sources that published statements regarding healthcare (and other government initiatives) which were unfavourable, or the government considered to be false.
I know many of you would probably support such a thing because it would at the time come to the defence of an issue you support, but the whole idea of a government agency responsible for punishing media outlets which spread dissenting ideas is a rather totalitarian one.
It sounds more like something you would hear about in China than in the west.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it'd be better to punish news outlets that spout incorrect information. That and news organizations that are legally not actually news organizations, ala Fox News.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32276736]I'd say it'd be better to punish news outlets that spout incorrect information. That and news organizations that are legally not actually news organizations, ala Fox News.[/QUOTE]
We'd be better off making a real effort to educate people so they can think for themselves rather than setting a precedent that it is 'criminal' to say something incorrect or controversial through a public medium. A lot of things may be incorrect or controversial to the people in power at the time, who's to say who is right? Would you be okay if a right wing governed agency took down a left wing blog because what they were saying was 'incorrect'? The other way around even?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32276736]I'd say it'd be better to punish news outlets that spout incorrect information. That and news organizations that are legally not actually news organizations, ala Fox News.[/QUOTE]
I may sound a little paranoid, but when given the power to reprimand the media the government might start to skewer articles in their favor. Our society is based on checks and balances, and the media is one of the many checks that ensures that the government doesn't gain too much power.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32276903]I may sound a little paranoid, but when given the power to reprimand the media the government might start to skewer articles in their favor. Our society is based on checks and balances, and the media is one of the many checks that ensures that the government doesn't gain too much power.[/QUOTE]
Well the goverment does right now have the power to reprimand the media, in very very very specific situations. A news paper couldn't publish an article stating to kill all muslims, and they can't publish an article about how 'Barrack Obama is a gay faggot' without facing reprimand in the courts. Libel is a crime in the media.
Unbiased does not mean it favors both sides equally. It means that it does not have a slanted portrayal of the facts with the intent of furthering it's own cause.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32276903]I may sound a little paranoid, but when given the power to reprimand the media the government might start to skewer articles in their favor. Our society is based on checks and balances, and the media is one of the many checks that ensures that the government doesn't gain too much power.[/QUOTE]
Making sure that sources that call themselves "news" don't use incorrect statistics and figures is bad, you'd say?
password to oify is brassmustache
Heh.
[QUOTE=Novistador;32276647]Was no one else a little freaked out a while ago when the whole health care thing had just come up and there were suggestions from democrats (I'm not sure if they were directly involved with Obama or the Whitehorse) That there should be an organization that either licences or monitors and punishes blogs and other Internet and media sources that published statements regarding healthcare (and other government initiatives) which were unfavourable, or the government considered to be false.
I know many of you would probably support such a thing because it would at the time come to the defence of an issue you support, but the whole idea of a government agency responsible for punishing media outlets which spread dissenting ideas is a rather totalitarian one.
It sounds more like something you would hear about in China than in the west.[/QUOTE]
The proposals you speak of that were not even formally put forward suggested that it would be acceptable to penalize any organization or media outlet that was intentionally putting forward false or misleading information on not just political topics, but any topic they covered. Or at least would be held accountable for their words and actions.
I supported and continue to support this idea because, frankly, it's become necessary. When you sit back and listen to all the misinformation and lies that you have being put forward by bloggers and "news" outlets, it's really disturbing. And absolutely inexcusable. It's obvious which ones do it intentionally and when they're doing it intentionally.
Take the groups out there that were claiming that the health care bill would put people out of work, would turn the country into a socialist dystopia, and would actually kill people ("pull the plug on grandma"). Each time false information like this is proclaimed fact and spread far and wide, you create more people like this:
[img]http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/1398/slide_1398_20072_large.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.fedupwithpc.com/photo/PhxTeaParty2009/PhxTeaParty2009-Signs3.gif[/img]
Now one might think that's not such a big deal, but when you convince enough people to believe these kinds of things, you are causing a lot of damage.
Case in point: health care reform. We went from having a comprehensive bill spanning around 1,000 pages that was very similar to the successful plan the Germans have been using since the 1880s following the welfare reforms of Chancellor von Bismarck that had a lot of public support, to a bill (following the long debate in Congress over the issue) that spanned more than 3,000 pages and scarcely resembled the original one (it was pretty much just the plan Gingrich put forward in the 1990s, with a few differences) because of the ridiculous amount of compromising that had to be done to get it to pass, because of the sudden lack of public support.
Consequently, it's a functional plan, but far from what it needed to be to actually accomplish anything significant.
Media outlets would be punished for spreading false or misleading information, not for having or voicing dissenting political opinions. There's a tremendous difference, FYI.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;32277173]Too long to quote.[/QUOTE]
So what are you going to do? Punish only American's for spreading false information on the internet? What are you gonna do when a person from the U.K or Iran hosts incorrect information on a foreign server? We're basically just shackling ourselves. That's dumb.
Many popular news agencys these days are foreign. Same with blogs. Some US based blogs may even have foreign hosts.
Misinformation is going to happen, there's nothing we can do about it, what we need is more transparency and clarity from the government directly. From the day we are born we should be taught to be politically active and aware(something that growing up in a U.S based school system, no one ever really pressured me to be until somewhat in senior year).
Shackling ourselves isn't the answer. The people that intentionally spread the lies will find a way around it.
[B]Edit:[/B]
Scratch the sentence I had here. Too much speculation.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]So what are you going to do? Punish only American's for spreading false information on the internet? What are you gonna do when a person from the U.K or Iran hosts incorrect information on a foreign server?[/quote]
First, the only thing this kind of law would apply to is media organizations in the United States, not to every single American citizen. Second, why does it matter what other nations report? It doesn't. It's our responsibility to worry about and look after ourselves, and to be accountable for what we say and do. If they wanted to follow suit with us using similar laws, that's fine, but otherwise it's not any of our concern.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]We're basically just shackling ourselves. That's dumb.[/quote]
Ensuring that our country's media outlets report correct and accurate information in a professional, ethical manner is "shackling" ourselves"? To a professional system of ethics and standards through law, I suppose. But even so, how's that a negative thing? It isn't. It's just one more step in the right direction.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]Many popular news agencys these days are foreign.[/quote]
Actually, the most popular ones in the United States are CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, the AP, CBN, USA Today, the Washington Post, and the Young Turks.
[url]http://www.tv-tube.tv/tvchannels/news/country/united-states[/url]
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]Same with blogs.[/quote]
As Wikipedia says, [Citation Needed].
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]Some US based blogs may even have foreign hosts.[/quote]
Some, but it's doubtful many are, especially when one looks at the number of news outlets I just listed above that have their own blogs.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]Misinformation is going to happen, there's nothing we can do about it, what we need is more transparency and clarity from the government directly.[/quote]
In regards to misinformation, I do not recall saying otherwise; I remarked on the issue of [b]intentionally[/b] spreading misinformation- which can be stopped. Furthermore, how do you reckon that more government transparency will do anything to solve this problem- let alone how do you propose we make the government anymore transparent than what it already is? Every issue that Congress is presented is available for you to read already.
[url]http://www.house.gov/[/url]
[url]http://www.senate.gov/[/url]
Want to check out what's going on in the White House? You can:
[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/[/url]
The facts are readily available for everyone to read. That's transparency. The problem is that few people actually do take the initiative to take the time to read them for themselves. That's nobody's fault but their own, true. What they do is sit back and wait to receive whatever information is presented to them- on TV, on the radio, etc. Most of the time, the information they're getting is correct and is not intentionally skewed; however, there are plenty of other times where the same cannot be said.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]From the day we are born we should be taught to be politically active and aware(something that growing up in a U.S based school system, no one ever really pressured me to be until somewhat in senior year).[/quote]
We should be, and many people are, but many also are not. That's redundant. And then there's the fact that regardless of whether or not people are informed and are politically active, a good lot of them will still simply support whatever benefits them the most and simply say "Fuck everyone and everything else".
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]Shackling ourselves isn't the answer.[/quote]
First, we're not "shackling ourselves". Second, simply ignoring the issue isn't going to accomplish anything other than allowing the problem to grow. And it will grow.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]The people that intentionally spread the lies will find a way around it.[/quote]
When you're targeting major media outlets that reach far more people than a basement-dwelling blogger does, fat chance of them finding a way around it. Even assuming they do, the important thing is that it won't be acceptable and definitely won't be swelling to even bigger proportions. That said, the notion of not doing anything at all to counter it is not only defeatist, it's rather silly considering that plenty of other countries have laws pertaining to the subject for the exact same reasons. Laws which they've been able to successfully enforce.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]Meant to say this a second ago, but I'm sure one of the websites everyone is thinking about spreading false information is Fox News.[/quote]
Well it is the most distrusted media outlet in the United States.
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/fox-news-most-distrusted-_n_811471.html[/url]
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]Well enacting this legislation isn't going to stop them. Garun-fuckin-teed, you do this, and FoxNews.com will magically end up pointing to a place where this law doesn't even apply, under a subsidiary of News Corp.[/quote]
It must be a very special gift. To be able to see into the future, I mean.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;32277737]If it isn't struck down in the supreme court in the first place.[/QUOTE]
If it would be, it would be very surprising, since, again, plenty of other countries have got laws about this sort of thing. And surely it could be adapted to work with what numerous laws we've already got pertaining to libel, slander, etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
