ren hoek
Footballguy
I liked Ali Abunimah's comment: Imagine how many trees would have to die to print the newspaper that listed all the names of the victims of all the wars the @nytimes helped lie us into and/or cheerled.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Media Criticism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ren hoek
- Start date
squistion
Footballguy
The NYT is not failing. Not even close to failing, but I digress...
I would expect that any news organization that would print a list of 1000 names would get some of the information wrong, such as in this instance where at least one name was a victim of a homicide not COVID19. That doesn't make it fake news, particularly if they made a correction when the error was discovered (as they always do).
And the point was to make people aware that the 100k pandemic deaths are not just cold statistics. As the article subheading said: “They Were Not Simply Names on a List. They Were Us.”
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Come on Max, you're better than this.
There was one name out of 1000 that was mistakenly inserted. They corrected the error within a couple of hours.
squistion
Footballguy
All newspapers, websites, blogs get facts wrong occasionally, even some of your faves, I bet. It goes with the territory. The reputable publications when notified of a mistake immediately correct it and usually make some public notation of the error. Saying getting one detail wrong means that nothing else can be trusted is holding a publication to a standard that few, if any, could ever meet.
[scooter]
Footballguy
No media outlet in the history of the world has ever gotten all of the small stuff right.
This is an example of the War On Media. Complaining about the correction instead of complaining about the uncorrected claims.
Max Power
Footballguy
I stole that quote from a CNN talking head. That was their standard that you call a war on media.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Was the talking head talking about the media, or talking about Trump? And were they talking about uncorrected things, or things that were quickly corrected?
Max Power
Footballguy
Accuracy is accuracy in any reporting.
This was something as simple as reading an obituary and the NYTIMES got basic data entry wrong. Not a good look.
[scooter]
Footballguy
They corrected the error almost immediately instead of doubling down or complaining about fake news.
Demanding perfection is disingenuous distraction of sociopaths.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It’s important to remember these people who died. I can’t imagine why someone would focus on editorial correction in an effort to get that right. Has the President said anything in remembrance or to mark this grave milestone? Heck Max has he said anything in honor of the fallen for Memorial Day?
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
When they run a sensational front page like that, they should at least check their facts.
And the president isnt rooting for the 100,000 death milestone like some people seem to be.
Trump will make a memorial day statement on memorial day. I'm interested to see if the MSM can let the COVID scare take a backseat to honor the fallen. We'll see.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That was premature on my part, I’m sorry, I’m sure he will. I hope it’s the first thing he tweets tomorrow, before anything else, and I hope it is as decent, solemn and respectful as this one.
I sincerely thank you for your service, Max, I’ve been flying the flag all weekend, GB
.(USA)
Last edited by a moderator:
The NYT have been guilty of "playing with the news" for a long, long time. (from 2005)Max Power said:
No doubt about it.
"It’s always interesting when a powerful institution takes a public look at itself. Last Sunday, The New York Times published a review of Buried by The Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper, a book by journalist Laurel Leff, which details how The Times skirted the issue of the Holocaust during the early 1940’s, even as it was becoming more and more known that the Nazis were singling out Jews for mass murder. While The Times’ shameful delinquency on this front has been known and acknowledged by those within and outside the paper, the review is defensive in tone and works hard to discredit Ms. Leff’s point of view".
"While it was perhaps inevitable that The Times had to review Ms. Leff’s book, lest the newspaper be accused of trying to ignore its publication, the review itself carries an unmistakable tone of condescension. While openly admitting that ” The Times was seriously negligent throughout the period,” The Times’ reviewer, Robert Leiter, spends a good portion of the review trying to discredit Ms. Leff, charging her book with the crime of “moral indignation” and calling it “a high-minded crusade against one newspaper.” The review contains some curious assertions: Mr. Leiter notes that during World War II, ” The Times was the pre-eminent newspaper in the country,” but then implies that even if The Times had run front-page headlines about the Holocaust, it wouldn’t have had an influence on the culture at large. The fact is, other papers across the country paid close attention to what The Times chose to highlight; they would have quickly followed the paper’s lead on any big story. Going even further, Mr. Leiter tries to lay the blame for The Times’ aloofness on the Holocaust itself: The Nazi death camps, he writes, were unprecedented, and thus the Sulzbergers couldn’t be expected to have “comprehended the extent of what was happening in Europe.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Widbil83
Footballguy
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, Washington Post, Boston Herald, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Salon, Mother Jones and Politico.
squistion
Footballguy
Can you provide even one link to back up this cheering by any of the above for 100,000 death milestone or are just blowing smoke?
supermike80
Footballguy
Dont always need a link to believe something is true.
A lot of people believe in God, and there's no link to prove it exists
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
There is absolute no truth to that and anyone should be ashamed of accusing CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, etc. of cheering to reach 100,000 deaths.
sho nuff
Footballguy
But he is claiming something is factual...not that he believes they did...but they actually did do it.
This is nothing like people's faith.
Widbil83
Footballguy
I just provided like 20 sources, I can’t do everything.
I just turned on CNN and they are gleefully anticipating 100k. I wouldn’t be surprised if Wolf Blitzer and Fredo pop out of a cake and Confetti and streamers fall from the ceiling.
squistion
Footballguy
You provided zero sources. You just named names without any proof or link of any kind.
And saying CNN just now was gleefully anticipating 100k deaths is a flat out lie - you can not provide a video clip link of anything remotely like that or to prove that CNN has ever once expressed that attitude.
As was noted, if you want to say you believe that, that is fine, but don't express it as fact.
I wouldn't call it joy, but they are sitting on the edge of their seats awaiting to exploit it to score political points.
matuski
Footballguy
I don't think they are cheering for it at all. Not the right word.
Promoting? Absolutely. Better word imo. Invested is another good word for it.
I'd set the over under on CNN at 10 headlines at any given moment? Competing strongly to outnumber headlines about Trump latest tweet or golf outing.
Last edited by a moderator:
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Big difference in believing in something and accusing people/companies of wanting people to die.
supermike80
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
Just to be clear. When he said that you genuinely took it as fact and expected there to be link where one of those sources referenced actually say. "Yay!!!! 100,000 deaths" instead of realizing that was his opinion? Seriously?
So because CNN hasnt opened up champagne at 100,000 and live streamed it, it isnt possible.
My goodness.
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter]
Footballguy
First you complain because the page only has 999 victims instead of 1000, then you complain because they're acknowledging 95K dead instead of 100K.
Really weird takes.
Max Power
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
These chronology word game headlines are getting a bit ridiculous. Group X gets Covid after event Y. (Then write article and explain how group Y also did ten other things that are much higher risk in the last paragraph)
Also give it up. The WI election on April 7th did not cause a spike in cases.
Also give it up. The WI election on April 7th did not cause a spike in cases.
squistion
Footballguy
No, but there were 67 who became infected with COVID-19 after voting that might not have otherwise.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/health-med-fit/67-got-covid-19-after-visiting-polls-in-states-april-7-election-but-tie-to/article_49a42a7e-45d8-50cc-bd76-3a583842de39.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Gordon Van Saulter, ex-president of CBS and of Fox, has written an article in the WSJ - The ‘Liberal Leaning’ Media Has Passed Its Tipping Point.
It's dead on and from a guy with a huge amount of credibility in the industry. The media is hopelessly biased with the vast majority leaning way, way left.
It's dead on and from a guy with a huge amount of credibility in the industry. The media is hopelessly biased with the vast majority leaning way, way left.
About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She was lamenting what she called the “liberal leaning” media. As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a “liberal tilt” and could be corrected.
“You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”
Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.
News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.
To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed. That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president. To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner. Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the “resistance,” dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.
This poses significant problems not only for Mr. Trump but for the media’s own standing. If Mr. Trump prevails in November, what’s the next act, if any, for journalists and the resistance? They will likely find Mr. Trump more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first.
More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests? Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public—one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful.
On the other hand, how would the media respond to a Joe Biden victory (beyond exhilaration)? Will Mr. Biden be subjected to the rigor and skepticism imposed on Mr. Trump? Will he get a pass because he is a liberal and “not Trump”? The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered.
The media seems uninterested in these issues of bias. But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers? Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience. The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it.
There’s probably no way to seal the gap between the media and a large segment of the public. The media likes what it is doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There is no personal, professional or financial reason to change. If anything, the gap will expand. Ultimately, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.
Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founder of the website Mediaite, has a novel but valuable idea for the media—candor. Speaking to the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, Mr. Abrams said “I think the first thing that would help . . . is to admit . . . that the people in the media are left of center.”
It would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!
Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable.
Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care. And the other side can certainly enjoy throwing rotten tomatoes at distant targets.
But America won’t reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it.
“You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”
Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.
News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.
To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed. That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president. To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner. Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the “resistance,” dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.
This poses significant problems not only for Mr. Trump but for the media’s own standing. If Mr. Trump prevails in November, what’s the next act, if any, for journalists and the resistance? They will likely find Mr. Trump more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first.
More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests? Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public—one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful.
On the other hand, how would the media respond to a Joe Biden victory (beyond exhilaration)? Will Mr. Biden be subjected to the rigor and skepticism imposed on Mr. Trump? Will he get a pass because he is a liberal and “not Trump”? The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered.
The media seems uninterested in these issues of bias. But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers? Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience. The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it.
There’s probably no way to seal the gap between the media and a large segment of the public. The media likes what it is doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There is no personal, professional or financial reason to change. If anything, the gap will expand. Ultimately, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.
Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founder of the website Mediaite, has a novel but valuable idea for the media—candor. Speaking to the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, Mr. Abrams said “I think the first thing that would help . . . is to admit . . . that the people in the media are left of center.”
It would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!
Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable.
Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care. And the other side can certainly enjoy throwing rotten tomatoes at distant targets.
But America won’t reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
You are helping to prove my point.
There was literally no connection made other than "did you vote in person?" How many cases do you think would say yes to "did you go to the hardware store in the last 30 days?" Funny that I didn't see those articles written...
The median incubation is 5.1 days. They asked the voting question for a month.
400,000 people voted in person. 67 got covid 19 within 30 days(I actually feel it capped at 72 people eventually, but dont feel like looking it up and that is still junk). That is throw away data that was only asked for political purposes. Even if they knew exactly how the person contracted the disease they still went into that yes column. They wanted this to be true.
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/lawyer4laws/status/1265279383310233605?s=20
Lawyerforlaws
@lawyer4laws
MSNBC Reporter outrage over people not wearing Masks .. Has to admit . . His own MSNBC Camera Crew weren't wearing Masks..
Lawyerforlaws
@lawyer4laws
MSNBC Reporter outrage over people not wearing Masks .. Has to admit . . His own MSNBC Camera Crew weren't wearing Masks..
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/lawyer4laws/status/1265279383310233605?s=20
Lawyerforlaws
@lawyer4laws
MSNBC Reporter outrage over people not wearing Masks .. Has to admit . . His own MSNBC Camera Crew weren't wearing Masks..
Was just about to post this. Reporter thought he was gonna humiliate the guy by turning the camera on him. Got schooled right back.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
It’s shocking that the media would be this shameless.https://twitter.com/lawyer4laws/status/1265279383310233605?s=20
Lawyerforlaws
@lawyer4laws
MSNBC Reporter outrage over people not wearing Masks .. Has to admit . . His own MSNBC Camera Crew weren't wearing Masks..
ren hoek
Footballguy
Krystal Ball: CNN, MSNBC CAUGHT covering for catastrophic Cuomo mistake
The uncritical Cuomo worship is getting pretty ridiculous.
The uncritical Cuomo worship is getting pretty ridiculous.
Trump signed another executive order he doesn't have the power to enforce. Apparently he's mad at social media platforms for calling him on his lies, so he's trying to see if they can be sued. I can answer that now: They can't. Too bad his behavior won't change, because this would all go away if he just didn't lie.
squistion
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Imagine if Trump reacted as quickly on COVID as he did about being called a liar on Twitter.Kal El said:
He sprung into action in like 30 minutes after Twitter put a little note on his latest lie.
ren hoek
Footballguy
CNN falsely reports that people in Louisville are protesting over George Floyd. That's important too of course, but they are protesting the killing of Breanna Taylor- a medic killed in her own home by police officer serving a no-knock warrant on the wrong address.
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BreonnaTaylor&src=trend_click&f=live
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BreonnaTaylor&src=trend_click&f=live
Roy L Fewks
Footballguy
Trump is the one who ordered flags to half staff before we crossed the 100K threshold. He is the one who couldn't wait.
Max Power
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/xidigtv/status/1265927595339722752?s=20
MN reporter caught playing fake gunshots during a MN protest.
MN reporter caught playing fake gunshots during a MN protest.
