Jump to content

Stories the Mainstream Media Won't Tell You


Recommended Posts

Please, all of you who don't trust the MSM (including The National Post, FOX and The Sun) go to those YouTube sites with retarded content, such as QAnon, Flat Earth, and The Rebel.

We do need you to remove yourself from the conversation so that normal people can discuss actual politics.  

(I liked the doofus allowing himself to be punched while he proudly yelled 'Cocoa Puffs, Frosted Flakes !'.  There's your alt-right free expression in a nutshell...)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

OK so you don't want to believe them.  How about the proud boys founder?

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/proud-boys-founder-feels-responsible-controversial-behavior-59766444

 

Bribed by the media I guess?  

 

Give it a rest, they are scum.  

You might want to try watching the video you're linking to. For one thing the title in the link is deceptive. The actual title at the link is "Proud Boys founder on whether he feels responsible for its controversial behavior". 

And I'll give you a spoiler, he doesn't. In fact it's never specified what ABC means by "controversial behaviour." But if you or them are trying to suggest it's some sort of far right, extremist behaviour McInnes denies that exists.

Also many of the claims are out of context fake news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Please, all of you who don't trust the MSM (including The National Post, FOX and The Sun) go to those YouTube sites with retarded content, such as QAnon, Flat Earth, and The Rebel.

Do the first two channels you mention even exist?

I check out The Rebel from time to time. I also watch everything you watch. This qualifies me on those subjects. Qanon or Flat Earth though? I don't know...I don't know anything about them. Apparently you do. Go ahead then, tell me about em'. I'll listen.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You might want to try watching the video you're linking to. For one thing the title in the link is deceptive. The actual title at the link is "Proud Boys founder on whether he feels responsible for its controversial behavior". 

And I'll give you a spoiler, he doesn't. In fact it's never specified what ABC means by "controversial behaviour." But if you or them are trying to suggest it's some sort of far right, extremist behaviour McInnes denies that exists.

Also many of the claims are out of context fake news.

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/gavin-mcinnes-quits-proud-boys

Canadian founder Gavin McInnes quits Proud Boys after FBI labels it an 'extremist group with ties to white nationalism'

 

So I guess thats the fake broadcasting invention?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Do the first two channels you mention even exist?

2. I check out The Rebel from time to time. I also watch everything you watch. This qualifies me on those subjects.
 

1. The National Post ?  FOX ?  Yes, they exist.
2. I see Rebel articles and videos pushed in my face all the time.  It's low-IQ horseshit for the most part.  On the other hand, National Post and Globe and Mail are better than the Star and CBC in quality IMO.   

All of the troubles Trudeau is facing now are stories that were given wide coverage by, and mostly broken by the mainstream media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

So I guess thats the fake broadcasting invention?  

I don't know...but why don't you guys try reading or watching your links so you can tell me what specifically you're talking about. But  no, I don't think this from the article is fake at all.

Quote

He said he did this reluctantly, as he sees the Proud Boys as the greatest fraternal organization in the world, but “rumours and lies and terrible journalism has made its way to the court system.”

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I don't know...but why don't you guys try reading or watching your links so you can tell me what specifically you're talking about. But  no, I don't think this from the article is fake at all.

 

Sounds exactly like a trumper.  Mass media corrupts everyone, everything that doesn't pan out the way I want is because of a conspiracy. 

Lol paranoid much?  I know the stuff is legal here but I think you're overdoing it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Sounds exactly like a trumper.  Mass media corrupts everyone, everything that doesn't pan out the way I want is because of a conspiracy. 

Lol paranoid much?  I know the stuff is legal here but I think you're overdoing it.  

Buddy, I'm telling you the article doesn't say what you're claiming. If you were to take the time to actually read it to get the full context you'd know that. Don't be blaming me for your choice to remain ignorant.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Cut the crap. You know which two I was talking about. In the next sentence I quoted the names you gave me. Nice try though.

No, you said the first two.  They're not TV channels but they are MSM.  QAnon or Flat Earth ?  Yes, they're on YouTube.

I indulge conspiracy theorists all the time, the least you can do is give me the benefit of the doubt when I play back literally the first two MSM outlets as you asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, you said the first two.  They're not TV channels but they are MSM.  QAnon or Flat Earth ?  Yes, they're on YouTube.

I would expect somebody who wants to talk technicalities to know that groups of videos from a single contributor at YouTube are also called "channels." 

Also I don't believe you're so daft that you couldn't tell what I was talking about when I specified it in the follow-up sentence. Stop trying to convince me you are.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, you said the first two.  They're not TV channels but they are MSM.  QAnon or Flat Earth ?  Yes, they're on YouTube.

I indulge conspiracy theorists all the time, the least you can do is give me the benefit of the doubt when I play back literally the first two MSM outlets as you asked.

 

1 minute ago, Cannucklehead said:

Jason Kessler, the primary organizer of the deadly 2017 Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, is a former Proud Boy. Several members attended the violent August 12, 2017 demonstration that ended in the death of counter-protestor Heather Heyer.

 

Model citizens.   We should all aspire to be like them.  :rolleyes:

You watched the video your buddy posted. Good for you. Have you got around to reading the article you posted yet?

But yeah, that's a problem. Proud Boys got too big. It started attracting trouble-making infiltrators. Did you know the Charlotteville organizer was a Progressive? Infiltrators were a problem for Tommy Robinson and the English Defence league too. It's why he quit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Did you know the Charlotteville organizer was a Progressive? Infiltrators were a problem for Tommy Robinson and the English Defence league too. It's why he quit.

You really seem to love angry... assholes.  I don't think anyone can help you with that, as politics is about discussion of ideas and negotiation.  So marching alt-right types and the violent counterparts that beat them up... really belong in a different theatre of engagement...
 

Far-right, alt-right... proud boys... have zero appeal to rational and mainstream conservatives.  As I say - there's a youtube channel somewhere that needs comments.  Please aim your discussions there, and the rest of us will move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

You watched the video your buddy posted. Good for you. Have you got around to reading the article you posted yet?

But yeah, that's a problem. Proud Boys got too big. It started attracting trouble-making infiltrators. Did you know the Charlotteville organizer was a Progressive? Infiltrators were a problem for Tommy Robinson and the English Defence league too. It's why he quit.

"Though he has repudiated racism and anti-Semitism in some of his writings and speeches, he has also made statements that have openly denigrated nonwhite cultures," writes Alan Feuer in the profile of McInnes published in the New York Times on Tuesday.

Feuer cites one example: McInnes praised white men for bringing "roads and infrastructure" to India and Australia, claiming that the people who lived there first used those amenities as toilets and beds

 

Right...."infiltrated"  lol

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Far-right, alt-right... proud boys... have zero appeal to rational and mainstream conservatives.  

Proud Boys were created as a men's social club. You're upset because they don't take crap and when attacked by the commie vermin of Antifa and BLM tend to kick their asses. Too bad, so sad is all I have to say on that.

But what you're calling "rational or mainstream conservatives" is what me and mine conservatives call "RINOs," fake or "Progressive" Conservatives. 

Real conservatives don't give a crap what Progs think of them. Progressives a minority that thinks they're the majority.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

"Though he has repudiated racism and anti-Semitism in some of his writings and speeches, he has also made statements that have openly denigrated nonwhite cultures," writes Alan Feuer in the profile of McInnes published in the New York Times on Tuesday.

What Feuer forgets to tell you in the fishwrap of record, a one-time newspaper is McInnes considers himself a satirist and comedian.

I don't know what Feuer is offended by specifically from McInnes. He doesn't appear to want to tell you but I'll bet it's hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that's what I said. Progressive Conservatives suck. Maybe not as deep and hard as Liberals but they still suck.

I just clicked Canucklehead's sublink at Taki. 

https://www.takimag.com/article/10_things_i_like_about_white_guys_gavin_mcinnes/#axzz4itJnHwDg

Turns out I was correct. It's satire. Haven't finished it yet, but it's giving me the chuckles.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/24/2020 at 1:27 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Please, all of you who don't trust the MSM (including The National Post, FOX and The Sun) go to those YouTube sites with retarded content, such as QAnon, Flat Earth, and The Rebel.

We do need you to remove yourself from the conversation so that normal people can discuss actual politics.  
 

Hmmm. Let me state at the start that I don't ever go to the Rebel, and my opinion on FOX is fairly well known. I would expect people would also know I have no time for the loonies of Qanon or flat earth.

I don't trust the MSM.

My distrust for them has been slow in building. There was a time I just shook my head and rolled my eyes at those who even used the term "The MSM". No longer. It seems clear to me that politicization has taken too strong a hold at all major media enterprises. That politics, mainly progressive politics and ideological beliefs now slant their news coverage. They don't give the straight truth any more. They don't give the whole truth. They give the partial truth, telling you what they want you to know so you'll think as they want you to think. What goes against their political agenda, what might cause you to think poorly of a cause they support, gets downplayed or isn't reported at all.

And btw, who do you think is "normal"? A Pew Research poll recently found less than half of Americans have confidence in the media. That's not because of the internet. It's not because of social media. It's because the mainstream media has abandoned its roll as unbiased herald of the news and has gone activist. Activists always twist what they tell you so you'll agree with them. That's what the media does now.

If you told me that elements of the mainstream media were deliberately trying to incite violence and cause riots I couldn't argue. Certainly their coverage of race and policing could not be better designed to incite outrage, bitter resentment and anger among Blacks towards police - which will get both police and blacks killed - if they deliberately set out to do so.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

1. I don't trust the MSM.

2. What goes against their political agenda, what might cause you to think poorly of a cause they support, gets downplayed or isn't reported at all.

3. It's because the mainstream media has abandoned its roll as unbiased herald of the news and has gone activist. Activists always twist what they tell you so you'll agree with them. That's what the media does now.

4. If you told me that elements of the mainstream media were deliberately trying to incite violence and cause riots I couldn't argue.

 

1. Do you trust the Southam Chain ?  The Globe & Mail ?  The National Post ?  I don't agree with them, and I think they have an agenda.  Of course they do.  But I do trust them not to outright lie.  When I read a well-reasoned argument in those pages I know I am reading something that is well-considered and substantive.
2. All proponents of an argument will downplay the counter argument.
3. Arguable.  There are many factors at play here.  People also distrust institutions in general - government, media, religion, science, universities.  Is this because rational individuals are making a considered stand against 'mainstream media' ?  I think there are a host of factors at play here, at various levels of rationalization also.  ie. Some people don't "trust" institutions because they are bought into conspiracy theories, others have been let down by said institutions.
4. If we are at the point where we are arguing as to whether riots are happening, then objective reality is no longer of interest to the power centres involved.  it's also the opinion of many that the administration is fomenting unrest for their own interests.  So, I AGREE with you: "I can't argue".
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Do you trust the Southam Chain ?  The Globe & Mail ?  The National Post ?  I don't agree with them, and I think they have an agenda.  Of course they do.  But I do trust them not to outright lie.  When I read a well-reasoned argument in those pages I know I am reading something that is well-considered and substantive.

Oh I trust them to not outright lie, sure. That doesn't mean they'll tell me the truth. The Postmedia chain( Southam is gone) is not nearly as conservative as some people seem to want to believe. Just as one example they've stopped posting the names of criminals arrested. Most likely because they tended to be ethnic. I noticed that whenever anyone (including me) posted anything about the ethnicity or immigration status of those arrested the comment was quickly deleted, even if it came directly from the police web site. You will never find an anti-immigration opinion or story in a Postmedia newspaper* or in the Globe. Nor will there be stories about the failure of segments of immigration. You will not find tons of stories about racism, but only if it's white.  You will find tons of stories about black people abused by police but nothing whatsoever to hint that statistically speaking this might be caused by Black crime levels. Same goes for natives or other minorities. You will see lots of stories about women being paid less than men, or not being given the same opportunities as men, but nothing whatsoever about the fact men work longer hours or work in more dangerous occupations. They tell the truth, just not all the truth.

There is one reporter on the Vancouver Sun who sometimes writes about problems with immigration. But that never gets picked up by the wider network, despite the stories being national in nature. Meanwhile local news stories often get picked up by the national network and placed in other newspapers.

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. All proponents of an argument will downplay the counter argument.

Naturally. But that's the problem. The news media have become proponents in an argument as opposed to relatively unbiased purveyors of the news.

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Arguable.  There are many factors at play here.  People also distrust institutions in general - government, media, religion, science, universities.  Is this because rational individuals are making a considered stand against 'mainstream media' ?  I think there are a host of factors at play here, at various levels of rationalization also.  ie. Some people don't "trust" institutions because they are bought into conspiracy theories, others have been let down by said institutions.

In the US, perhaps, but Canadians tend to be a trusting bunch, even in government. But you can recognize you're only getting one side of a story if you don't limit your news interest to one organization. And before long you start wondering why the Post only told me this and not that, or why the Globe didn't mention that in its story, or why the CBC is always talking about this, but never the context you get somewhere else. This can't help but lead to suspicion that people are trying to tailor their information to suit themselves.

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. If we are at the point where we are arguing as to whether riots are happening, then objective reality is no longer of interest to the power centres involved.  it's also the opinion of many that the administration is fomenting unrest for their own interests.  So, I AGREE with you: "I can't argue".

Again, the only way to have a decent idea of what's going on is to use multiple sources. CNN might not tell you something, but you might even pick up the odd stray bit of real truth at FOX. You can get lots on Youtube, or BBC or even the Daily Mail (Yes, I know it's a rag). But I have found some of the small online outfits like Unheard, City Journal, and Quillette seem to give a lot of information which puts things into context the CBC, CNN and even the Globe won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...