I'm getting really tired of the hyperbole from Raw Story readers here

[berni_mccoy]

The latest is absurd (see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6040756#6040952 )

Since Obama stepped into office, too many people here have falsely titled articles as "Obama Refuses" or "Obama does X horrible thing" when in reality, it's an overblown story about a branch of the government saying they don't have jurisdiction. In my opinion, some people here are trying too hard to take an opposition stance to the President because that's all they've ever done. Now that they don't have a real dipshit in office to rail against, they have to sensationalize the real story.

Here is their modus operandi: Raw Story reports on an AP release or story, report most of the same material and then some person at DU puts up a sensationalized (and often false) headline.

Case in point: The current story (linked to above) is from an AP story via NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106502937).

The original title of the story: "Obama admin: No grounds to probe Afghan war crimes"

Raw Story reports most of the same content with the following headline: "Report: Bush admin. skirted probe of mass Afghan slayings"

The current post here at DU: "UPDATE: OBAMA ADMIN. REFUSES PROBE OF CIA-BACKED, MASS AFGHAN SLAUGHTER"

The DU posting title is completely dishonest and puts a false stance on Obama. It might seem like a small change, but it isn't. The Obama administration doesn't see any grounds based on the reports that the mass slaying was not committed by our military. Is that to be trusted on it's face value? No. but if you dig deeper and read the original story, you realize why they are not investigating. It's not because they "refuse" to investigate.

This kind of hyperbole is damaging to the perception of the supporters here who have to work to see through the B.S. of the title. Moreso because it originates from here, a site that supposedly is supportive of Democrats. This kind of behavior is happening far too much here and I'm getting very tired of it. I wish there was a policy here to address this kind of behavior.

[Oregone]

1. This Stalinish hyperbole will destroy the country

[PretzelWarrior]

20. the correct term is Stalinist moustache

[babylonsister]

2. Rec'd with thanks. If you delve deeper into that thread,

people did question the story and the OP's title. Too bad there are so many people here that don't bother to read about the deception.

Whenever I see anything from rawstory, I treat it kind of like politico; sorry to anyone offended, but I don't trust them.

[drm604]

3. Definite K&R

This doesn't just happen with Raw Story readers. It also happens often with stories from the MSM without RW as an intermediary.

I've felt the need to respond more than once with something like "that's not what it says" or "did you actually read the article?".

I can't tell sometimes if the poster lacks reading comprehension, if they're intentionally trying to mislead people, or if they actually haven't read the entire article.

I think sometimes they read a misleading headline, get suckered in, and post it here without actually understanding the problem with the article.

[scheming daemons]

4. And now.. because we can keep this bullshit off the Greatest Page, the jackals are howling...

...

[bluestateguy]

5. That's because it's a nut website

I still remember about 5 years ago, the Alarmists from Raw Story were going into a conniption because "an aide to Dick Cheney has LEFT THE COUNTRY" OMG!!! Conspiracy!! He left the country!!!! And of course nothing ever came of the big promised conspiracy that was surely Just About to Break.

At that point, I decided to tune out Raw Story.

[noamnety]

6. What your OP leaves out:

You conveniently point out that it wasn't our military committing the crimes, but omit that it was someone on the CIA payroll.

From your link: "Dostum, the Northern Alliance general who is accused of overseeing the atrocities, has previously denied the allegations. A former U.S. ambassador for war crimes issues, Pierre Prosper, told the Times that the Bush administration was reluctant to investigate the deaths, even though Dostum was on the payroll of the CIA"

---------------

That looks to me like it warrants further investigation.

[Bjorn Against]

9. Thanks for pointing that out

Any CIA involvement needs to be investigated, but when they are accused of wrongdoing it seems that the official government response is always that there are "no grounds" to investigate. Let's face it, every Presidential Administration in the history of this country has always protected the powers that be in the military, intelligence and law enforcement communities, there is no reason to believe that the Obama Administration is working to hold these people accountable for any of their past crimes.

[berni_mccoy]

12. What you leave out: "The Times cited U.S. military and CIA ties to Afghan Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum"

"ties"... that's so concrete. The CIA pays many people for loose alliances. That doesn't mean we approve of everything they do. And it's not grounds for an investigation.

[noamnety]

13. The former US ambassador says he was on the CIA payroll.

I am clearly not understanding the point of your post.

[berni_mccoy]

14. So was Osama. That doesn't mean we are responsible for all of their actions.

[Bjorn Against]

15. Funding of terrorist groups is usually considered solid grounds for an investigation

Unless of course it is the people in power who are funding terrorists, then we are always told there is "no grounds for an investigation".

Do you believe that the CIA funding of Osama bin Laden was justifiable?

[Fire1]

7. OFF TOTHE GREATEST PAGE!!!!! YEAH, BABY!!!!

:rofl:

[struggle4progress]

8. I consider it a divide-and-conquer tactic of trolls

[Strelnikov_]

10. KnR n/t

[ThirdWorldJohn]

11. the video - The Convoy of Death - email it to the White House

Interesting video in 6 parts

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4B3782F4FA561452&search_query=Afghan+Massacre%3A+The+Convoy+of+Death

[Voice for Peace]

16. thanks berni nt

[EFerrari]

17. While RawStory is guilty, imho, so are most other outlets.

It would be nice for RS to dial it back in contrast to the corporate media.

[ohheckyeah]

18. I agree.

I also hate when people are deliberately misleading just to get people to click on their link. It's not funny, it's not cute and it's annoying.

[BlooInBloo]

19. It does suck when people caricature what might otherwise be a somewhat valid gripe....

They kill their own cause with their dishonesty. And people in the future often simply ignore what they say when next they cry wolf.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

23. Yeppers. I think the unrec feature will help convince OP'ers to get their facts straight and

their tone reasonable.

[DainBramaged]

21. Raw Story, a true example of the phrase "taken with a grain of salt".

Do like I do, hide the thread. Once it's up, it ain't commin' down.

[Odin2005]

22. It sickens me how people call Obama a falure because he refuses to act like a dictator.

No wonder so many posters like Chavez, they (like Bush) wouldn't mind a dictatorship as long as they are the dictators.

[noamnety]

25. Well, it's a good thing the people who strongly support Obama

don't resort to hyperbole and misrepresentations. ;)

[Odin2005]

26. I do? Must be the behavior of the Bashers rubbing off.

:P :)

[johnaries]

24. And when others point out the dishonesty, they are accused

of trying to stifle Free Speech or defending Obama just because it's Obama. I don't know what their motivation is, but it's not constructive. K&R

[Raster]

27. So berni, you are complaining about Raw Story's readers and their hyperbole, and not Raw Story.

I can see NOTHING in Raw Story's reporting of this story which warrants dismissal of Raw Story itself as hyperbole or indicates inherent dishonesty.

The dishonesty and hyperbole arise in the way it was posted on DU, not Raw Story.