What's new
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)

GROOT said:
MSNBC/CNN tried too hard. They went too damn far with conspiracy stories. They cried wolf every week. I believe they are the reason Trump will win in 2020. He's now the favorite in Vegas.
Click to expand...
Nevermind

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter] said:
Have there been any recent updates in Epstein's story that weren't publicized?

I'm not sure if you understand how journalism works. You do realize that news organizations do not exist for the sole purpose of publicizing stale conspiracy theories about dead people.......right?
Click to expand...
media does have a purpose and intent more so now than ever before

sway the population and feed fires more than anything IMO

 
I think the best quote I've heard so far is that if everything Trump does rates an 11, how do we really know when an 11 happens. 

Ukraine might have been a slam dunk, but the debunked Russiagate hurt the cause. 

 
timschochet said:
Debunked? It was never debunked. 
Click to expand...
Meh, the Mueller report didn't put him in jail where he belongs.  We all read Saints dome, so we know he's really guilty, but to 99.5% of the public it's a bonafide NOTHINGBURGER.

Really, we gotta be smarter than falling for these Jeff Zucker promoted fantasies. Put yourself in the shoes of the average American who is more concerned about the masked singer unmasking, than unmasking by intelligence.  As much as everyone hates Trump, people aren't digging too deep into the details of Ukraine or Russia.  Especially, when many perceive that nothing happened so it must be ok.  All I'm saying is the platform needs to be against Trump's policies not Trump is a criminal.  Let's beat him fair and square without spying on his campaign this time!

 
Going to put this in here since I don't want to derail the other thread, but the recent border story about smuggles penetrating the wall with just a 100 dollar cordless tool is a fairly good example of poor journalism. They have no pictures of breaches or any actual accounts of any breaches. They have unnamed sources. That's it. 

Now if they hadn't printed an article just a few days ago talking about how very little of new barrier had been built( i think like 3.32 miles in texas) and if they hadn't previously attacked claims of drugs coming across those parts of the border it may not seem so bad. 

It also goes out of its way to bury that it would take 15-20 minutes of cutting to get through one bollard. You could get into most safes in that same amount of time. Nothing is impenetrable. Border patrol likes the idea of people having to take so long to cut through since it gives them time to get there to apprehend and you know loud noises like that carry quite well in the empty desert. And there was already a report from january by NBC that the bollard style border could be cut through. This isn't news. It is biased fodder for a group that just wants any quick hit they can get. 

You literally have thousands of people right now thinking that smugglers just walk up to this thing with their dewalt saws and just pop right through on a regular basis.(but they couldn't snap a single photo of any breach over such a small stretch of land?)  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter] said:
The poll on the left says it was conducted by NYT/Siena in Iowa; the poll on the right says it was conducted by the University Of New Hampshire in New Hampshire.
Click to expand...
The poll on the right says it was a "CNN/UNH" poll conducted from Oct. 21-27- Warren 21%, Sanders 18%, Biden 15%.  The other image, from an article published on the 29th, recounts a "CNN/UNH" poll that resulted Sanders 21%, Warren 18%, and Biden 15%.  

Here is the poll, in which CNN incorrectly cited Warren as the frontrunner (5th graphic down): https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&context=survey_center_polls

 
[scooter] said:
Seems like less of a distortion and more of a graphical typo. CNN's story on the poll had Sanders and Warren in the correct spots.
Click to expand...
Yeah I can see where it's really hard to type the correct name and image to reflect the actual results of a poll, and not notice the error on the second listing either.  Weird how these typos always seem to work in the same direction too, I guess it's just a coincidence.  

 
ren hoek said:
[scooter] said:
Seems like less of a distortion and more of a graphical typo. CNN's story on the poll had Sanders and Warren in the correct spots.
Click to expand...
Yeah I can see where it's really hard to type the correct name and image to reflect the actual results of a poll, and not notice the error on the second listing either.  Weird how these typos always seem to work in the same direction too, I guess it's just a coincidence.  
Click to expand...
What do you mean "second listing"? The only error I see is Warren/Sanders being flipped one time.

And what do you mean by "always"? Has this happened more than one time? Can you post a link please?

 
[scooter] said:
What do you mean "second listing"? The only error I see is Warren/Sanders being flipped one time.
Click to expand...
https://imgur.com/JfaphTQ

Who would you key in as the #1 frontrunner if you saw this graphic?

Who would you then key in as the #2 runnerup if you saw this graphic?  

Seems to me that you'd have to err twice to come up with Sanders not in first place, and then Sanders wrongly as second place, etc.  It doesn't take a braingenius to look at that graphic and think, "OK, Bernie Sanders is the preferred 2020 nominee according to these poll results".  

 
[scooter] said:
Seems like less of a distortion and more of a graphical typo. CNN's story on the poll had Sanders and Warren in the correct spots.
Click to expand...
There's around a dozen examples of them "making a mistake" with Sanders, or attributing quotes from Sanders to Warren, or cutting off segments when it gets positive toward Bernie. Mistakes definitely happen, but theres too much smoke with CNN and MSNBC

 
KiddLattimer said:
[scooter] said:
Seems like less of a distortion and more of a graphical typo. CNN's story on the poll had Sanders and Warren in the correct spots.
Click to expand...
There's around a dozen examples of them "making a mistake" with Sanders, or attributing quotes from Sanders to Warren, or cutting off segments when it gets positive toward Bernie. Mistakes definitely happen, but theres too much smoke with CNN and MSNBC
Click to expand...
Can you post a link please?

Specifically, I'm asking about scenarios similar to what happened here (i.e., with items associated with Warren and Sanders being switched), which ren claimed to "always seem to work in the same direction".

 
[scooter] said:
Can you post a link please?

Specifically, I'm asking about scenarios similar to what happened here (i.e., with items associated with Warren and Sanders being switched), which ren claimed to "always seem to work in the same direction".
Click to expand...
Yea no problem... There are others but here's a quick list

Jacobin has a good list of MSNBC "typos" here.  (I know Jacobin is totally in the tank for Sanders but it's a good list of examples)

Here they left him off a graphic about contenders in Iowa. Hilariously they remembered Williamson

Here's one of the examples of them attributing quotes (there were a few others but I'd have to dig them up)

Here's an example of Steve Kornacki cutting off a segment about needing to win in early states when Bernie comes up in first in Nevada

 
KiddLattimer said:
[scooter] said:
Can you post a link please?

Specifically, I'm asking about scenarios similar to what happened here (i.e., with items associated with Warren and Sanders being switched), which ren claimed to "always seem to work in the same direction".
Click to expand...
Yea no problem... There are others but here's a quick list

Jacobin has a good list of MSNBC "typos" here.  (I know Jacobin is totally in the tank for Sanders but it's a good list of examples)

Here they left him off a graphic about contenders in Iowa. Hilariously they remembered Williamson

Here's one of the examples of them attributing quotes (there were a few others but I'd have to dig them up)

Here's an example of Steve Kornacki cutting off a segment about needing to win in early states when Bernie comes up in first in Nevada
Click to expand...
:confused:

None of those are CNN. Ren said "these typos always seem to work in the same direction too" in reference to a CNN error.

You said "There's around a dozen examples of them "making a mistake" with Sanders" in reference to my post about CNN.

If you don't have similar examples of CNN making these types of errors, that's fine. But when you post links to (MS)NBC as a direct response to my inquiry about CNN, it has the effect of implying that I was referring to MSNBC, which I was not.

 
[scooter] said:
:confused:

None of those are CNN. Ren said "these typos always seem to work in the same direction too" in reference to a CNN error.

You said "There's around a dozen examples of them "making a mistake" with Sanders" in reference to my post about CNN.

If you don't have similar examples of CNN making these types of errors, that's fine. But when you post links to (MS)NBC as a direct response to my inquiry about CNN, it has the effect of implying that I was referring to MSNBC, which I was not.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, I skimmed so I thought we were talking about the collective media. 

CNN hasn't been as bad as MSNBC but they still do it like this one listing Warren first despite worse numbers, excluding him from this graphic (Biden wasn't even in the race at this point and Bernie was leading).

They're also still pulling some shady things like adjusting footage to turn Bernie red (presumably to make him look sicker) after he had his surgery, and using graphics that make him look old and sick, despite him looking fine in the video interview they were using the sickly image to promote.

And of course stacking town halls

 
Ibrahim @ibrahimpols

MSNBC’s Joy Reid pushing the Bernie/Stein/Tulsi Russia nonsense

Joy Reid thinks Tulsi Gabbard’s use of “regime change wars” is a “common term” also deployed by Russia to talk about the U.S.

@ggreenwald

MSNBC employs someone as a news host who - just last year - fabricated a story about a fake hacker who traveled back in time and ghost-wrote her bigoted articles, and then claimed there was an FBI investigation underway to find this hacker. Why do people not trust the media????

 
MSNBC is fullbore rank propaganda.  I really didn't think it was possible for people to fall for McCarthyism again.  I remember late in 2016 when the TrumpRussia stuff started heating up thinking 'this isn't gonna be a thing is it?'  It's amazing that this transparent garbage gets any breathing room at all, let alone becoming standard fare on a television network watched by millions of people.  Absolutely crazy.  

 
ren hoek said:
MSNBC’s Joy Reid pushing the Bernie/Stein/Tulsi Russia nonsense

Joy Reid thinks Tulsi Gabbard’s use of “regime change wars” is a “common term” also deployed by Russia to talk about the U.S.
Click to expand...
She’s correct on this point, isn’t she?

ren hoek said:
MSNBC employs someone as a news host who - just last year - fabricated a story about a fake hacker who traveled back in time and ghost-wrote her bigoted articles, and then claimed there was an FBI investigation underway to find this hacker. Why do people not trust the media????
Click to expand...
As an argument against Reid’s claim, this is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
She’s correct on this point, isn’t she?
Click to expand...
I don't know.  They might say "endless war" a lot as well.  Would that mean that it's a Russian talking point to complain about "endless war?"  Why can't we just take her arguments on substance, without questioning her patriotism and worrying about whether it helps "the Russians"?  Isn't it easy to see how noxious it is to stigmatize other viewpoints this way?

Maurile Tremblay said:
This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's a personal attack to bring up the fact that she fabricated a nonsensical story to explain away her own blog posts.  Especially when making a point about her integrity as a news analyst.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I think she is.
Click to expand...
Ok.  I don't see what news relevance this is supposed to have.  It seems like the clear intent is to stigmatize a US veteran's antiwar positions by tying them to Russia, rather than her own personal conviction that US intervention in those territories is wrong (and destructive, costly and dangerous).  If that's part of a healthy media climate for you, then I guess we just agree to disagree.  

Clint Watts goes on: ".. withdraw from the world which is a message that Russia wants Americans saying to Americans so it's a great opportunity for them."  Again, this is stigmatizing an antiwar view, and propping up a pro-interventionist stance.  

"If you listen to that rhetoric you would think that the US started a war in Syria which did not happen..".  

But that's not true.  The CIA, along with Saudi Arabia and others, funneled a billion dollars+ of weapons and trained the radical jihadist opposition in Syria.  This caused rampant death, destruction, and a massive immigration crisis.  In a rare moment of honest news coverage, Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs explained it on that network.  Joy Ann Reid just let him tell flatout lies on national television to millions of people, unchallenged.  That's propaganda.  

 
jon_mx said:
Democrats screamed collusion and it did not materialize.  To debunk something is near impossible but the Democrats failed miserably in proving their case.  
Click to expand...
Republicans, not Democrats, started and led the investigation. And I’d say they adequately proved their case that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, and that Trump subsequently obstructed the investigation into that interference.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Republicans, not Democrats, started and led the investigation. And I’d say they adequately proved their case that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, and that Trump subsequently obstructed the investigation into that interference.
Click to expand...
Every administration since Reagan has obstructed an investigation.  The allegation was collusion.   

 
The media is awful these days. Story comes out about a black woman charged with misdemeanor child abuse when her son fell from an escalator. 

Story gets reported almost exclusively from the angle of her attorney. Claims the kid was caught on the escalator and it lifted him up and over and he fell. 

So of course social media is furious. Claiming racism. Anger at the police. Airport should be sued. Government overreach, etc. 

Well if you actually do some research you find out that the reason the mom was charged was because her kids were playing on the escalator for an hour. They were grabbing the handrail and riding it up. He didnt get "caught". The daughter actually fell too but a random traveler saw the kids and actually caught her when she fell. That was all bs lawyer propaganda, but because it checks off better ratings boxes they went with the lawyer. 

 
Mark Ames @MarkAmesExiled

Our "watchdog" media doing it all it can to cover up whistleblower evidence about fake WMDs in Douma—the rationale used to bomb Syria. Yep, we're still lying about WMDs to bomb Arabs—and the official media is still 100% complicit.

 
KiddLattimer said:
[scooter] said:
Can you post a link please?

Specifically, I'm asking about scenarios similar to what happened here (i.e., with items associated with Warren and Sanders being switched), which ren claimed to "always seem to work in the same direction".
Click to expand...
Another example... the graphics department seems to make an awful lot of mistakes
Click to expand...
You really think that qualifies as "outrageous" (as per the tweet you linked)?

I mean, wouldn't "outrageous" be something more like omitting Bernie from the actual percentages on the screen?

Who looks at the crawl but not the table??

Also, I noticed that your tweet conspicuously omitted the audio from this clip. So, I tracked down the video at CNN.com and guess what? Sanders is clearly identified as being in 2nd place -- in fact, he was specifically highlighted by the host. So, anyone listening or looking at the table would have not only received the correct info, but would have heard extra-positive news about Bernie.

 
[scooter] said:
You really think that qualifies as "outrageous" (as per the tweet you linked)?

I mean, wouldn't "outrageous" be something more like omitting Bernie from the actual percentages on the screen?

Who looks at the crawl but not the table??

Also, I noticed that your tweet conspicuously omitted the audio from this clip. So, I tracked down the video at CNN.com and guess what? Sanders is clearly identified as being in 2nd place -- in fact, he was specifically highlighted by the host. So, anyone listening or looking at the table would have not only received the correct info, but would have heard extra-positive news about Bernie.
Click to expand...
By itself its certainly not anything other than a mix up, but MSNBC/CNN are working on at least a couple dozen now with no examples of mixing up in favor of Sanders

 
A false testimony may have put a Texas man on death row, his attorneys say. He was executed anyway
Click to expand...
This is a pretty stupid headline by WaPo. 

The obvious implication there is that he might be innocent and they just executed him. OMG!! Injustice!

Well then you realize this part of the story is so completely irrelevant only a hack would report it that way. There was zero question of Travis Runnels guilt. Evidence was clear and he even plead guilty. The false testimony came during the punishment phase. In order to get the death penalty you have to prove to the jury that the convicted will be a danger in the future. Whether that be to prison guards, other prisoners, staff, visitors, whatever. Well the man was convicted of killing a prison guard by slitting his throat because he was unhappy with his job assignment. He also had numerous other incidents of attacking guards. 

The false testimony came from a man that testified on behalf of the state and spoke to what prison classifications were assigned to different prisoners and how security was at those levels. His testimony was incorrect about the assignment of levels. He has admitted it was incorrect. The state has admitted it was incorrect. The courts determined it didn't matter since they felt that killing a prison guard is what sold the jury on thinking he would be a danger in the future to prison guards. 

Crazy, I know. 

 
parasaurolophus said:
A false testimony may have put a Texas man on death row, his attorneys say. He was executed anyway
Click to expand...
This is a pretty stupid headline by WaPo. 

The obvious implication there is that he might be innocent and they just executed him. OMG!! Injustice!

Well then you realize this part of the story is so completely irrelevant only a hack would report it that way. There was zero question of Travis Runnels guilt. Evidence was clear and he even plead guilty. The false testimony came during the punishment phase. In order to get the death penalty you have to prove to the jury that the convicted will be a danger in the future. Whether that be to prison guards, other prisoners, staff, visitors, whatever. Well the man was convicted of killing a prison guard by slitting his throat because he was unhappy with his job assignment. He also had numerous other incidents of attacking guards. 

The false testimony came from a man that testified on behalf of the state and spoke to what prison classifications were assigned to different prisoners and how security was at those levels. His testimony was incorrect about the assignment of levels. He has admitted it was incorrect. The state has admitted it was incorrect. The courts determined it didn't matter since they felt that killing a prison guard is what sold the jury on thinking he would be a danger in the future to prison guards. 

Crazy, I know. 
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it doesn't matter if the guy is guilty. All that matters is that a government employee submitted inaccurate info that tended to go against him. Those are the new rules now.

 
It was yet another shoddy month for corporate media credibility.  It is understandable why so many are discarding it as a trustworthy news source.  

-WaPo reporter Shane Harris refuses to accept accountability for his factually wrong statements re: FISA warrants being predicated in part on the Steele Dossier.  

-Media to Americans: Of course the Trump dossier is true!  It's been corroborated!  It hasn't been disproven!  

-On nominally antiTrump media outlets like CNN/MSNBC being packed by former security state officials: "The very people being investigated for the Durham report work for CNN and MSNBC. How can they possibly cover or "analyze" these facts in a sincere way?"

-Comey's FBI, long heralded by media pundits as noble crusaders for justice and showered with book deals and guest spots, revealed by Chris Wallace to be lying, deceptive weasels with zero integrity: https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1207046889327255552

-Corbyn smeared endlessly as an antisemite; same tactics will be weaponized in the US against Jewish man who lost family in the Holocaust. 

-Sanders being erased, again and again.

-MSNBC puts on two Hillary Clinton aides to trash Sanders for not doing enough to help her win in 2016.

-NYT and CNN have done 737 stories on Hong Kong protests (where 0 protesters have been killed by police) and a total of 76 stories on Chile, Ecuador and Haiti (where police have killed dozens of protesters).

-CNN embarrasses itself over Manafort exclusive.

-The mainstream narrative on Syria, has collapsed.  There has been scant if any coverage at all of OPCW whistleblowers accusing the organization of doctoring its own reports, under pressure by the US.  

A journalist resigned from Newsweek after his "attempts to publish newsworthy revelations about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason." 

He has published this piece as a followup account of what happened.  LIES, NEWSWEEK AND CONTROL OF THE MEDIA NARRATIVE: FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Washington Post Reporter Rachel Bade tweeting "Merry Impeachmas" while having a celebratory dinner was definitely bad form.

She deleted it and said it was misinterpreted. 

 
What is more newsworthy—a decision to give the Pentagon three-quarters of a trillion dollars, or an ad for an exercise bike? If you picked the Pentagon spending, you may not have a future in corporate media.

The House of Representatives voted on December 11 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which is the spending bill that outlines the annual budget for the US military. The NDAA, which authorizes $738 billion in Pentagon spending, launched Trump’s Space Force as a separate branch of the military, included $1 billion more in funds for the F-35 fighter jet, and failed to halt the Trump administration’s use of military funds to expand the southern border wall. Along with setting the budget, the NDAA also forbids the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea; a progressive provision that would have restricted US military support for Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war on Yemen was removed. The NDAA passed the House with overwhelming support from both parties, with only 48 dissenting voices, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, voting nay.

You would be forgiven for not knowing about any of this, however, because the establishment media showed little interest in covering the NDAA. FAIR searched for coverage of the NDAA in ten of the most influential news outlets: the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox News. During a five-day period (12/8–13/19) in the week that the NDAA vote took place, it received paltry coverage in these outlets, with a total of just 27 articles mentioning it. Only the Washington Post covered the NDAA to a significant degree, publishing 10 different articles about the subject during the five-day period. The other outlets published at most two or three articles about the NDAA.

To gauge just how newsworthy the media found the military bill, FAIR compared the volume of coverage to another story that broke around the same time: the Peloton exercise bike’s embarrassing ad campaign. The ad’s sexism and elitism were roundly mocked on social media, and corporate media found this worth covering. From December 4–8, the Peloton ad was mentioned 57 times total across the ten outlets studied, more than twice as often as the NDAA was brought up over a comparable period. Fox holds the record for the greatest disparity in coverage: There are 12 different articles or videos discussing Peloton on its website, compared to only a single article (12/11/19) covering the NDAA bill. Only the Washington Post covered the NDAA more than Peloton (10 articles versus 5), while every other outlet gave an ad for an exercise bike more coverage than a multi-billion-dollar grant to the military industrial complex.

To Corporate Media, an Exercise Bike Ad Is More Newsworthy Than 3/4 of a Trillion for the Pentagon

 
parasaurolophus said:
Washington Post Reporter Rachel Bade tweeting "Merry Impeachmas" while having a celebratory dinner was definitely bad form.

She deleted it and said it was misinterpreted. 
Click to expand...
I could see how it'd be a joke, as in they were calling the day before the vote "Impeachment Eve", and so that would make the day of the vote, humorously, Impeachmas - regardless of the outcome.  But yeah, definitely tone-deaf and not a good idea to post.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Washington Post Reporter Rachel Bade tweeting "Merry Impeachmas" while having a celebratory dinner was definitely bad form.

She deleted it and said it was misinterpreted. 
Click to expand...
Just another example of the outright bias.

 
If a man pulled a gun on somebody and tried to steal their car and during the struggle the carjacker got shot and died, should any headlines refer to that carjacker as a "man killed by gun violence"

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
994
ren hoek
ren hoek
chet
One generation of progressive leadership to plunge Venezuela into civil war
Replies
29
Views
835
Shula-holic
Shula-holic
LawFitz
Let's Talk Peaceful USA Realignment
2 3 4
Replies
181
Views
3K
AAABatteries
AAABatteries

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top