Those wacky right wingers are at it again.........

Frankly in reading the article it looks like nothing but a smear, one debunked in the article itself.

Even if the allegations that 80% of the revenue generated by these 'freedom concerts' did go to costs, one would have to check into all the figures. For instance, how much does a ticket cost? If the answer is ten dollars or some low amount, it would be obvious why 80-90% of the revenue went to overhead. Putting on massive stage performances isn't cheap. Nor are hotel rooms, transportation for yourself and family and staff and crew.

From the article alone you get the sense that they're playing a game of show and tell. They're telling you everything but showing you nothing. Could be wrong, but I don't understand the point of this.

 
I'm not a Huffington Post reader, but aren't they one of the news outlets typically mentioned when people talk about biased journalism? If that's the case, you have to take anything coming out of their pages with a huge grain of salt.

If there's a problem, the FTC will come down on them and we'll know. A quick google doesn't show an article with any kind of "smoking gun" from a source other than the Huffington Post or some form of watchdog group (with, presumably, an axe to grind).

 
knapplc said:
I'm not a Huffington Post reader, but aren't they one of the news outlets typically mentioned when people talk about biased journalism? If that's the case, you have to take anything coming out of their pages with a huge grain of salt.

If there's a problem, the FTC will come down on them and we'll know. A quick google doesn't show an article with any kind of "smoking gun" from a source other than the Huffington Post or some form of watchdog group (with, presumably, an axe to grind).
Click to expand...
A true piece of unbiased journalism is very hard to come by.

 
Which is why I approach every news story, regardless of the source, skeptically. However, while biases exist in every facet of journalism, there are some sources that are more biased than others. I think that's a given, yes?

 
It's a f@cking charity!! You would think that those with a complaint could 1) voluntarily not give their money to the charity. 2) Start their own charity in which all the profits went directly to the soldier's children, if they believe that is not the case now. The article and passing of information is fine and could be useful in deciding who one gives money to, but is it really necessary to involve government in a problem that involves a voluntary choice?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top