LYING MEDIA!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

If the "I" knew, the "I" could discuss. All the "I" does is write short cryptic responses that never say anything. 

The "I" does know. 

Discuss what?  Whether or not the "I" trusts Auntie?  The PBS Newshour?  The Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, NPR, etc.?  Yes it does, to a great degree.  The "I" also uses common sense.

There's nothing to discuss.  You might not trust any of them, of course, but that's still no basis for a discussion.

Cryptic?

Edited June 12, 2017 by bcsapper

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

The "I" does know. 

Discuss what?  Whether or not the "I" trusts Auntie?  The PBS Newshour?  The Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, NPR, etc.?  Yes it does, to a great degree.  The "I" also uses common sense.

There's nothing to discuss.  You might not trust any of them, of course, but that's still no basis for a discussion.

Cryptic?

The topic here is about political news, not everyday events. The Guardian etc., they're no better. Today the Guardian put out a story that Trump has postponed his UK visit. It has already been debunked by both US and UK administrations.

They're all just mouthpieces that push out news from the same sources. They don't necessarily even know if what they're reporting is true, but it's being fed on "the wire". The question is who is feeding the wire. It costs money to push stories to the top of the heap, if you want to put out fake news. Somebody is willing to pay for the air time.
Then the media whores all jump on board.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The topic here is about political news, not everyday events. The Guardian etc., they're no better. Today the Guardian put out a story that Trump has postponed his UK visit. It has already been debunked by both US and UK administrations.

They're all just mouthpieces that push out news from the same sources. They don't necessarily even know if what they're reporting is true, but it's being fed on "the wire". The question is who is feeding the wire. It costs money to push stories to the top of the heap, if you want to put out fake news. Somebody is willing to pay for the air time.
Then the media whores all jump on board.

If you say so, but what percentage of today's Guardian political stories were wrong?  What are the chances that one is still going to be very well informed of one reads, listens to, or watches all of the organizations I mentioned?  Plus uses the common sense I also mentioned?

If you feel they are all lying to you, why get your news from any of them?

Edited June 12, 2017 by bcsapper

[OftenWrong]

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If you say so, but what percentage of today's Guardian political stories were wrong?  What are the chances that one is still going to be very well informed of one reads, listens to, or watches all of the organizations I mentioned?  Plus uses the common sense I also mentioned?

If you feel they are all lying to you, why get your news from any of them?

News reporters formerly believed in journalistic accountability, you didn't post a story based on pure hearsay from anonymous sources. To be fair a story should give complete information, not soundbites or statements given without full context. That is media manipulation. It's long been known that the media is a powerful propaganda tool. What's happened incrementally is that information became a valuable commodity. There's big money in it. However we've now reached the point where the lines between news and entertainment are blurred.

Again I am only discussing political news. Call me cynical if you wish, but I never trust what the leader says, cause when the leader speaks, the leader lies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

News reporters formerly believed in journalistic accountability, you didn't post a story based on pure hearsay from anonymous sources. To be fair a story should give complete information, not soundbites or statements given without full context. That is media manipulation.

 

Agreed...it's all about clickable "content" now...not hard news.   "Analysis" has taken the place of dedicated fact finding (who, what, why, when, and where) journalism.    Partisanship and ideology is now proudly displayed.   Content and spin bias has been democratized with technology.

It has gotten so bad over the past 25 years, the news media outlets have to run ad campaigns begging for restored trust, as it clearly has been shaken.  False reporting, incompetence, plots to damage leaders, ratings sweeps, etc. is now summarized with one catch phrase:  "FAKE NEWS"

News organization budgets have been slashed, and foreign bureaus are nearly all gone.   Television and print media news is going the way of the dinosaur.

 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

News reporters formerly believed in journalistic accountability, you didn't post a story based on pure hearsay from anonymous sources. To be fair a story should give complete information, not soundbites or statements given without full context. That is media manipulation. It's long been known that the media is a powerful propaganda tool. What's happened incrementally is that information became a valuable commodity. There's big money in it. However we've now reached the point where the lines between news and entertainment are blurred.

Again I am only discussing political news. Call me cynical if you wish, but I never trust what the leader says, cause when the leader speaks, the leader lies.

 

26 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...it's all about clickable "content" now...not hard news.   "Analysis" has taken the place of dedicated fact finding (who, what, why, when, and where) journalism.    Partisanship and ideology is now proudly displayed.   Content and spin bias has been democratized with technology.

It has gotten so bad over the past 25 years, the news media outlets have to run ad campaigns begging for restored trust, as it clearly has been shaken.  False reporting, incompetence, plots to damage leaders, ratings sweeps, etc. is now summarized with one catch phrase:  "FAKE NEWS"

News organization budgets have been slashed, and foreign bureaus are nearly all gone.   Television and print media news is going the way of the dinosaur.

 

Nah, I'm not buying it.  There might be the odd article that is wrong for whatever reason in normally trustworthy media, but for the most part, it can be trusted. 

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

 

Nah, I'm not buying it.  There might be the odd article that is wrong for whatever reason in normally trustworthy media, but for the most part, it can be trusted. 

 

You don't have to buy it, but the evidence says otherwise, and has been more obvious as the "new media" competed with and exposed the purposeful "mistakes" by legacy news media.

• The New York Times had the infamous Jason Blair scandal almost 15 years ago.
• CBS News was complicit in a forged documents scandal against George W. Bush in 2004; Dan Rather disgraced his storied career over it.
• Several American news anchors and reporters have reported complete falsehoods or embellished stories to the point of lying (e.g. Brian Williams)
• News International in the U.K had a sordid phone hacking scandal which resulted in the demise of several media outlets.

These deliberate actions and many others like it go far beyond the odd article with a "mistake" or "error".

Edited June 12, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Hal 9000]

The MSM media has replaced global warming with Trump (TDS).  It used to be "there is a toronado, must be global warming", "the pandas aren't mating, must be global warming", now what we see is "liberals are rioting, must be Trump's fault", "liberals are gaining weight because of Trump", Theresa May didn't get a majority, must be Trump's fault" and the one I saw today, "these people live in an area that is sinking 16 feet a year, yet 87% voted for Trump anyway".

 

[Omni]

22 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

The MSM media has replaced global warming with Trump (TDS).  It used to be "there is a toronado, must be global warming", "the pandas aren't mating, must be global warming", now what we see is "liberals are rioting, must be Trump's fault", "liberals are gaining weight because of Trump", Theresa May didn't get a majority, must be Trump's fault" and the one I saw today, "these people live in an area that is sinking 16 feet a year, yet 87% voted for Trump anyway".

 

A breitbart fan eh? You guys are so funny.

[Hal 9000]

34 minutes ago, Omni said:

A breitbart fan eh? You guys are so funny.

Never seen Breitbart, however, all those stories about Trump are real...and have all been reported within the last few days.  In fact, all of them on MSNBC.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Never seen Breitbart, however, all those stories about Trump are real...and have all been reported within the last few days.  In fact, all of them on MSNBC.

Can you cite any of that. Sounds pretty hokey to me. One thing you won't have to search hard for is Trump's stupid tweets. His lawyer must be pulling his hair out.

[Hal 9000]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

Can you cite any of that. Sounds pretty hokey to me. One thing you won't have to search hard for is Trump's stupid tweets. His lawyer must be pulling his hair out.

Google it yourself!  I'm not providing you with information, that you either wont read or wont understand.  My house cat would get more out of a citation than you would.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Google it yourself!  I'm not providing you with information, that you either wont read or wont understand.  My house cat would get more out of a citation than you would.

That's exactly the response I expected from you. So you got nuttin'. 

[Hal 9000]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

That's exactly the response I expected from you. So you got nuttin'. 

You're too lazy to google it yourself?

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Theresa May didn't get a majority, must be Trump's fault" and the one I saw today, "these people live in an area that is sinking 16 feet a year, yet 87% voted for Trump anyway".

Actually these two do make some sense. Europeans don't like Trump, and science naysayers do.

[Omni]

What will be interesting to see how the media covers will be if Trump actually does go to the UK and meets with May, assuming she is still in office. Two completely ineffectual "leaders" strolling around London. Should be good.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Harvard did a study of media bias and Donald Trump recently, and what they found was Fox giving the most balanced commentary at 52/48% negative coverage.  All other networks were into the 90% negative range.  I guess if think anything less that 90% negative is too forgiving, then you might see an issue with the coverage.

Cite this study.

I would point out that Hitler would have not had very balanced coverage in a free press either. No, I'm not comparing the two. I'm pointing out that Trumps's incredible gaffes and stupid remarks and screwups, the chaos at the White House his continual contradicting of the message his own people, are trying to put out, his open and frequent outrageous lies, his unnecessary and often childish insults towards nations, his blatant hypocrisy, his almost endless golfing holidays, his serial adultery,  all would contribute to a tidal wave of negative coverage in even the most balanced media.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

News reporters formerly believed in journalistic accountability, you didn't post a story based on pure hearsay from anonymous sources.

You realize these sources are not anonymous to the journalist, right? They know who they're talking to.

And btw Trump used to love anonymous stories when they were against Clinton.

 

[Hal 9000]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

Cite this study.

I would point out that Hitler would have not had very balanced coverage in a free press either. No, I'm not comparing the two. I'm pointing out that Trumps's incredible gaffes and stupid remarks and screwups, the chaos at the White House his continual contradicting of the message his own people, are trying to put out, his open and frequent outrageous lies, his unnecessary and often childish insults towards nations, his blatant hypocrisy, his almost endless golfing holidays, his serial adultery,  all would contribute to a tidal wave of negative coverage in even the most balanced media.

Again with the cites, c'mon people don't be so lazy.

[Moonlight Graham]

Reason # 673 why CNN sucks.  I gave up of them a while ago.  Their coverage of the 2016 POTUS election cycle was horrendous.

[taxme]

On 6/5/2017 at 0:37 PM, Argus said:

I don't disagree that this happens. A lot of members of the media - on Left and Right - act like their job is convincing people to agree with their political or ideological viewpoint. So I can see them seizing on a half dozen Muslim women as the 'true' picture of Islam they want demonstrated to their viewers. The Canadian media does this a lot too, witness the year long deluge of stories about happy Syrian refugees in Canada. That does not necessarily make it fake, just exaggerated for editorial purposes. I don't think they arranged for these people to show up.

That being said, FOX does it even more often, and in a much more organized, deliberate, and determined fashion.

You have to be a red liberal or red tory, right? 

Edited June 13, 2017 by taxme

[taxme]

On 6/10/2017 at 0:02 PM, eyeball said:

Telus Optik offers a few news pkgs. We opted for two which included all the main Canadian and US news outlets - BBC, Euronews, Russia TV, Aljazeera, a perspective from China.

All seem to have their biases which is fine so long as you're aware of it and tune it with your BS filters.

I have to say Fox is like a cross between the National Enquirer and Mad magazine.

 

No doubt about it that you watch CNN, MSNBC and CBC, eh lefty? 

[taxme]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

Cite this study.

I would point out that Hitler would have not had very balanced coverage in a free press either. No, I'm not comparing the two. I'm pointing out that Trumps's incredible gaffes and stupid remarks and screwups, the chaos at the White House his continual contradicting of the message his own people, are trying to put out, his open and frequent outrageous lies, his unnecessary and often childish insults towards nations, his blatant hypocrisy, his almost endless golfing holidays, his serial adultery,  all would contribute to a tidal wave of negative coverage in even the most balanced media.

You do watch a lot of fake and phony liberal news media, don.t you? I suppose that we should not mention all the nasty lies and crooked dealings that went on in the WH when Obama and Hillary were running the show, eh? But we can just keep all that stuff too ourselves, ok? 

[taxme]

On 6/12/2017 at 0:03 AM, Omni said:

Can you cite any of that. Sounds pretty hokey to me. One thing you won't have to search hard for is Trump's stupid tweets. His lawyer must be pulling his hair out.

Why would his lawyer be pulling his hair out? Trumps lawyer is making lots of money off of Trump, and has been Trump's lawyer for decades. Have you looked in the mirror yet to check and see as to how much hair you have left after all the losses you have suffered from Trump not being impeached yet? 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

Why would his lawyer be pulling his hair out? Trumps lawyer is making lots of money off of Trump, and has been Trump's lawyer for decades. Have you looked in the mirror yet to check and see as to how much hair you have left after all the losses you have suffered from Trump not being impeached yet? 

Too late to give you a quickie course in law just now.