Johnnymac
Footballguy
So you disagree with everything this guy says? To me, he is spot on for the most part. The stuff about Clinton being squeaky clean I certainly do not agree with. She's a politician, it's part of the job.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Post-Truth Nation (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Johnnymac
- Start date
shader
Footballguy
As an example, two assumptions about Trump and Clinton from the election:
Trump is a racist
Hilary is a criminal
The internet is full of articles "proving" these points. But are they true?
Is Hilary really a criminal? Plenty of blogs will tell you she is, (and even Trump will), but yet she's not ever going to face criminal charges.
Is Trump racist today in 2016? I have no idea. But the KKK supporting him doesn't mean he's racist, don't they usually support republicans? And the scandal with him and black renters in the 1970s might prove that he was racist then, but is it relevant to today?
Yet you'll see liberal blogs chastise him for being racist.
You'd like to think both sides would stick to the facts and not label either person a criminal or a racist but we seem to be past that in this society.
We dig up things from people's past, and use them to "prove" the narrative that we wish to be true, even when we don't know the truth.
Trump is a racist
Hilary is a criminal
The internet is full of articles "proving" these points. But are they true?
Is Hilary really a criminal? Plenty of blogs will tell you she is, (and even Trump will), but yet she's not ever going to face criminal charges.
Is Trump racist today in 2016? I have no idea. But the KKK supporting him doesn't mean he's racist, don't they usually support republicans? And the scandal with him and black renters in the 1970s might prove that he was racist then, but is it relevant to today?
Yet you'll see liberal blogs chastise him for being racist.
You'd like to think both sides would stick to the facts and not label either person a criminal or a racist but we seem to be past that in this society.
We dig up things from people's past, and use them to "prove" the narrative that we wish to be true, even when we don't know the truth.
shader
Footballguy
Which article? The NPR article Tobias originally linked or the one at start of this thread?
I made it one paragraph into the huffington post article. They start their article by calling Trump racist by linking to a KKK victory parade on a website I've never heard of...
Again, this is my problem with the internet.
"KKK endorsed Trump"
fact
"This means Trump is a racist"
speculation
"Hilary is being investigated by the FBI"
fact
"This means she's a criminal"
speculation
If I read an article where big assumptions are being stated as fact, the credibility of the article is instantly shattered for me.
Its ok to say "x and y are worrying things about this persons character." But that's not strong enough language for a public that wants to label, judge and bury their opponents.
Spartans Rule
Footballguy
I made it this far in the article:
I'm far, far from a Trump fan, but it's just hypocritical to explain away all the reasons people hate Hillary while just accepting every negative thing ever said about Trump as truth.
After everything up to that point was visceral, negative hostility toward Trump.
I'm far, far from a Trump fan, but it's just hypocritical to explain away all the reasons people hate Hillary while just accepting every negative thing ever said about Trump as truth.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree with this. I think the problem is that people don't like opponents drawing conclusions from reported facts so what they then do is attack not only the conclusion but also the facts and then also the reporter of the facts so in the end nothing is believed.
And then even though the Internet offers a billion options people start relying on only their tiny little window of sources which just confirm what they want to hear.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
I think the larger point is that when the article just assumes Conservatives are racist from the get go at that point there is no need to read any further since it's clear that the writer is assuming things to prove some biased points. The credibility goes right down the drain. If the writer is going to lie right in his first few sentences, what is the point in reading the rest of the article?
Last edited by a moderator:
shader
Footballguy
I'm not a political person at all. But your post highlights exactly why this election cycle has intrigued me. It's astonishing to see people that you think are rational behave completely irrational.
Many Republicans will believe basically anything negative about Hilary and Democrats will accept anything negative about Trump.
Its amazing to watch.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
And I agree with this, but we've yet to see any truth. Let us know when we actually get some cause it's certainly not in the OP link.
I'll bite. So if libs say the racism and xenophobia were overblown, the majority right would say the same for emails and Benghazi?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
- That is horribly amazing if true.
- However I'm going to bet that the far, far majority of that is reaching people through Twitter and Facebook. The problem has occurred because of how people are choosing to access their (alleged) news.
- ETA - I think the open question is whether this is all an effect of the technology age or if this is the sort of antidemocratic populistic propaganda of the sort that drove the fascist and communist human disasters of the early 1900s. Obviously we are pulling for the former as a best case scenario.
Last edited by a moderator:
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Gosh, thanks, but my original point stands. It's proven every time a Trumpite won't look at a report from the NYT, WaPo or other MSM source because they think it's infected with some 'liberal' bug that keeps "The Truth" hidden. So what do they ever learn? Nothing.
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
It is also proven that the MSM was all out for Clinton.
America doesn't believe any of them.
AP: Survey Says Just Six Percent Put Their Trust in the Media
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm gonna say that the MSM did plenty of reporting on Hillary, I know that because I posted to them as a source a lot.
And as for your second point, well that's a huge damn problem because a free democracy needs a reliable press to stay free.
Thirdly I find it funny you rely on a stat reported from the MSM press to establish a point about the lack of trust in the MSM press.
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
The idea that Clinton is the most honest politician is obvious laughable. She is, however, the most transparent nominee to ever run for office. Of course, if it were up to her that would not have been the case (wikileaks) but it is true none the less.
Ironically, due to withholding his tax information, Trump is the least transparent nomimee in modern history.
Ironically, due to withholding his tax information, Trump is the least transparent nomimee in modern history.
moleculo
Footballguy
this is actually a pretty terrible article.
This is an argument piece, the point of which is to convince someone that Trump = bad. However, it is so full of snark that anyone who hasn't already drank the liberal cool-aid will be immediately turned off. All it really does is preach to the choir, so what's the point?
If they want to win the hearts and minds of the American middle, Liberals have got to figure out how to communicate with out the air of superiority or snark.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
True and it's a good example.
And when Trump uses the bully pulpit of the presidency to discredit the press it is going to get worse and it could make him scandal-proof, because as we have seen when dedicated followers decide they are just going to turn off the facts and disregard ethics then nothing will get through to them. And as long as a politician has that cadre of willing believers - or rather non-believers - they can get away with anything.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
I read the "article/story" what a smorgasbord of left wing misinformation. slanted statistics and dishonest talking points. A grain of truth here, complete removal of context there and presto. What a load of garbage, I think it would take months to go through the "reference links (bahahaha)" to nowhere guys with a blog stories and rebut virtually every inch of this dishonest poc.
That the OP picked this article to base his "post truth" thread is lol funny. Word of advice, if you want to talk about truth and fact, dont base your thread on some lol ridiculously amateurish rant from a self described humorist\story teller who no fin idea what he is talking about.
Yet the kool aid drinkers are so eager to drink it all down. Hillarys trashing and destroying the lives of rape victims or the vast right wing conspiracy, no cattle futures, her otr support for the iraq war and comments re wmds, firing of the wh travel office, the missing\found fbi files, how no sane public servant would think it was ok/logical/legal to setup an off the record email server when you are the secretary of state, not knowing what the "C" on all those emails meant (bawhahaha). No mention of her telling her daughter what actually happened in libya (IE the truth) and then despicably lying to parents of the dead later. The millions she and her husband have taken from foreign entities. Honest to god u could go on and on and on, this is a dishonest corrupt woman. Would it be just fine and dandy if the donald started the "trump initiative" and raked in money hand over fist from foreign entities while serving in a position of power in the federal gov?
Good lord what an amateur load of garbage that "article/story" is.
A less (rabidly) partisan take (imho)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442472/fake-news-post-truth-and-all-rest
Spiked’s Brendan O’Neill wades into the controversy over ‘fake news’, a controversy that, tellingly, does not revolve around the likes of Stephen Colbert and John Stewart, but rather involves claims that made-up news on social media may have swung things Donald Trump’s way. O’Neill quotes Angela Merkel: Angela Merkel bemoaned the ‘fake sites, bots, trolls’ which ‘manipulate’ public opinion and make politics and democracy harder. That Merkel had the chutzpah to say something like that is a reminder of how well she plays the post-democratic game. And here’s a reminder (via Politico from January) how news works in the country over which Merkel has presided for so long (my emphasis added):
Germany’s police and politicians have faced increasing anger in the wake of the New Year’s sex attack spree in Cologne, but much of the public’s ire has been directed at a group more comfortable asking questions than answering them: the news media. After largely ignoring the story for several days after the attacks, much of the national media appeared reluctant to explore possible links between the attacks and the recent influx of refugees. Some commentators went so far as to suggest it was unlikely asylum seekers were even involved…. More thoughtful observers see a problem deeper than political bias behind the coverage of Cologne and the broader refugee crisis: a press corps that has shifted from dispassionate observer to political actor. Instead of just reporting and analyzing events, some influential journalists, especially those who work for the public broadcasting networks, consider it their professional duty to serve as a counterweight to the populist rhetoric fueling the country’s right-wing revival, critics say.
Hold that thought, and then go back to O’Neill, who quotes Obama: President Obama slammed this ‘active misinformation’, arguing that ‘if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made’, then we ‘lose so much of what we’ve gained in terms of democratic freedoms’. To be clear, I have no doubt that social media has proved a useful conduit for disinformation, and, for that matter, that some of that disinformation has been generated by—to use the euphemism—‘state actors’, but they have, in a sense, been pushing at an open door. Reading O’Neill makes it clear who opened it:
The rise of fake news, ‘alternative news’ and conspiracy theories speaks not to the wicked interventions of myth-spreaders from without, but to the corrosion of reason within, right here in the West. It speaks to the declining moral and cultural authority of our own political and media class. It is the Western world’s own abandonment of objectivity, and loss of legitimacy in the eyes of its populace, that has nurtured something of a free-for-all on the facts and news front. That goes too far. There’s always been a strong market for rumor, conspiracy theories and myth, a market that is clearly now being given a boost by technology. That market predated the “abandonment of objectivity” and it would undoubtedly outlast its return. What’s different now (and this is part of what O’Neill is getting at) is the absence of individuals with the credibility to push back. That’s not to say there won’t be an attempt at to turn the tide. O’Neill:
Then came the paternalistic solutions. We need new ‘gatekeepers’, columnists claim: professionals who have the resources and brains to work out what’s true and what’s a lie and ensure that people see more of the former. Obama and others suggest Facebook must get better at curating news, sorting truth from falsehood on behalf of its suggestible users. To which the obvious retort is to ask who can be trusted to do that?
After all: Journalists have explicitly disavowed objectivity, and with it their ‘gatekeeping’ role. It is time to ‘toss out objectivity as a goal’, said Harvard journalism expert Dan Gilmor in 2005. By 2010, even Time magazine, self-styled epitome of the Western journalistic style, was celebrating ‘The End of “Objectivity”’…. The abandonment of objectivity in journalism did not happen in a vacuum. It sprung from, and in turn intensified, a rejection of reason in the West, a disavowal of the idea of truth, and its replacement either by the far more technical ambition of being ‘evidence-based’ or by highly emotional responses to world events. Indeed, the greatest irony in the fake-news panic, and in the whole post-Brexit, post-Trump talk of a new ‘post-truth’ era, is that it was the very guardians of Western culture and knowledge, the very establishment now horrified by how the little people think and vote, who made us ‘post-truth’; who oversaw the turn against Enlightenment in the academy…
And what happens when you give up your conviction that truth can be discovered, and instead promote the idea that all ways of looking at the world, and interpreting the world, and feeling the world, have validity? You disorientate public discussion. You slay your own cultural authority. You create a situation where people doubt you, often with good reason, and go looking for other sources of information. You create the space for other claims of truth, some of them good and exciting, some of them mad and fake. Don’t blame Russia, or us, for the crisis of journalism and democracy or for our so-called ‘post-truth’ times. You did this. You, the gatekeepers. Food for thought, I reckon.
That the OP picked this article to base his "post truth" thread is lol funny. Word of advice, if you want to talk about truth and fact, dont base your thread on some lol ridiculously amateurish rant from a self described humorist\story teller who no fin idea what he is talking about.
Yet the kool aid drinkers are so eager to drink it all down. Hillarys trashing and destroying the lives of rape victims or the vast right wing conspiracy, no cattle futures, her otr support for the iraq war and comments re wmds, firing of the wh travel office, the missing\found fbi files, how no sane public servant would think it was ok/logical/legal to setup an off the record email server when you are the secretary of state, not knowing what the "C" on all those emails meant (bawhahaha). No mention of her telling her daughter what actually happened in libya (IE the truth) and then despicably lying to parents of the dead later. The millions she and her husband have taken from foreign entities. Honest to god u could go on and on and on, this is a dishonest corrupt woman. Would it be just fine and dandy if the donald started the "trump initiative" and raked in money hand over fist from foreign entities while serving in a position of power in the federal gov?
Good lord what an amateur load of garbage that "article/story" is.
A less (rabidly) partisan take (imho)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/442472/fake-news-post-truth-and-all-rest
Spiked’s Brendan O’Neill wades into the controversy over ‘fake news’, a controversy that, tellingly, does not revolve around the likes of Stephen Colbert and John Stewart, but rather involves claims that made-up news on social media may have swung things Donald Trump’s way. O’Neill quotes Angela Merkel: Angela Merkel bemoaned the ‘fake sites, bots, trolls’ which ‘manipulate’ public opinion and make politics and democracy harder. That Merkel had the chutzpah to say something like that is a reminder of how well she plays the post-democratic game. And here’s a reminder (via Politico from January) how news works in the country over which Merkel has presided for so long (my emphasis added):
Germany’s police and politicians have faced increasing anger in the wake of the New Year’s sex attack spree in Cologne, but much of the public’s ire has been directed at a group more comfortable asking questions than answering them: the news media. After largely ignoring the story for several days after the attacks, much of the national media appeared reluctant to explore possible links between the attacks and the recent influx of refugees. Some commentators went so far as to suggest it was unlikely asylum seekers were even involved…. More thoughtful observers see a problem deeper than political bias behind the coverage of Cologne and the broader refugee crisis: a press corps that has shifted from dispassionate observer to political actor. Instead of just reporting and analyzing events, some influential journalists, especially those who work for the public broadcasting networks, consider it their professional duty to serve as a counterweight to the populist rhetoric fueling the country’s right-wing revival, critics say.
Hold that thought, and then go back to O’Neill, who quotes Obama: President Obama slammed this ‘active misinformation’, arguing that ‘if everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made’, then we ‘lose so much of what we’ve gained in terms of democratic freedoms’. To be clear, I have no doubt that social media has proved a useful conduit for disinformation, and, for that matter, that some of that disinformation has been generated by—to use the euphemism—‘state actors’, but they have, in a sense, been pushing at an open door. Reading O’Neill makes it clear who opened it:
The rise of fake news, ‘alternative news’ and conspiracy theories speaks not to the wicked interventions of myth-spreaders from without, but to the corrosion of reason within, right here in the West. It speaks to the declining moral and cultural authority of our own political and media class. It is the Western world’s own abandonment of objectivity, and loss of legitimacy in the eyes of its populace, that has nurtured something of a free-for-all on the facts and news front. That goes too far. There’s always been a strong market for rumor, conspiracy theories and myth, a market that is clearly now being given a boost by technology. That market predated the “abandonment of objectivity” and it would undoubtedly outlast its return. What’s different now (and this is part of what O’Neill is getting at) is the absence of individuals with the credibility to push back. That’s not to say there won’t be an attempt at to turn the tide. O’Neill:
Then came the paternalistic solutions. We need new ‘gatekeepers’, columnists claim: professionals who have the resources and brains to work out what’s true and what’s a lie and ensure that people see more of the former. Obama and others suggest Facebook must get better at curating news, sorting truth from falsehood on behalf of its suggestible users. To which the obvious retort is to ask who can be trusted to do that?
After all: Journalists have explicitly disavowed objectivity, and with it their ‘gatekeeping’ role. It is time to ‘toss out objectivity as a goal’, said Harvard journalism expert Dan Gilmor in 2005. By 2010, even Time magazine, self-styled epitome of the Western journalistic style, was celebrating ‘The End of “Objectivity”’…. The abandonment of objectivity in journalism did not happen in a vacuum. It sprung from, and in turn intensified, a rejection of reason in the West, a disavowal of the idea of truth, and its replacement either by the far more technical ambition of being ‘evidence-based’ or by highly emotional responses to world events. Indeed, the greatest irony in the fake-news panic, and in the whole post-Brexit, post-Trump talk of a new ‘post-truth’ era, is that it was the very guardians of Western culture and knowledge, the very establishment now horrified by how the little people think and vote, who made us ‘post-truth’; who oversaw the turn against Enlightenment in the academy…
And what happens when you give up your conviction that truth can be discovered, and instead promote the idea that all ways of looking at the world, and interpreting the world, and feeling the world, have validity? You disorientate public discussion. You slay your own cultural authority. You create a situation where people doubt you, often with good reason, and go looking for other sources of information. You create the space for other claims of truth, some of them good and exciting, some of them mad and fake. Don’t blame Russia, or us, for the crisis of journalism and democracy or for our so-called ‘post-truth’ times. You did this. You, the gatekeepers. Food for thought, I reckon.
Last edited by a moderator:
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Meh, while were on the subject........
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442465/fake-news-vox-ezra-klein?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily Trending Email Reoccurring- Monday to Thursday 2016-11-25&utm_term=NR5PM Actives
Millions of rightwing partisans believe dumb things: that Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, for example, or that Hillary Clinton has secretly carried on a years-long lesbian romance with her aide-de-camp. Remember Operation Jade Helm? And, indeed, over the last year, InfoWars and the Drudge Report and Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit blog have all pulled in record amounts of traffic, despite peddling demonstrably untrue stories as cold, irrefutable fact.
But the Left has its own nonsense. How many liberals still believe that George W. Bush “stole” the 2000 presidential election? Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine, hardly a denizen of the fever swamps, was declaring the 2000 recount stolen as recently as last month. And if you want fever swamps, consider a 2006 Scripps Howard poll found that half more than half of registered Democrats believed George W. Bush was complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks, with respondents split about evenly between calling Bush’s involvement “very likely” and “somewhat likely.”There’s a connection between the two. As “elite” media figures know, stories — true and false — trickle down, implanting themselves in the minds of hundreds of thousands or millions of citizens too busy or too lazy to do their own research. When Vox writes, “The election probably wasn’t hacked. But Clinton should request recounts just in case,” it’s legitimizing a seed of doubt. It’s no surprise, then, that Paul Krugman — Princeton economist, New York Times columnist, Nobel laureate — spent Tuesday night on Twitter calling for an “independent investigation” of election results, based on a New York Magazine report that a handful of “prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” think results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania “may have been manipulated or hacked.” There’s no meaningful evidence to support that charge, as the Times’ Nate Cohn immediately pointed out, but it’s now an active point of discussion on cable news. Where are the lines dividing “fake” news from real? Why was voter fraud a rightwing “conspiracy theory” when conservatives push it, but an urgent matter of electoral transparency now that it’s coming from liberals? Why are right-wingers fabulist nuts, but left-wingers devotees of triumphant Reason? And when Ezra Klein neglects the context that effectively invalidates his thesis, is it a mistake or a lie — or “fake” news?
A more responsible media wouldn’t create the confusion in the first place.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442465/fake-news-vox-ezra-klein?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily Trending Email Reoccurring- Monday to Thursday 2016-11-25&utm_term=NR5PM Actives
Millions of rightwing partisans believe dumb things: that Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim, for example, or that Hillary Clinton has secretly carried on a years-long lesbian romance with her aide-de-camp. Remember Operation Jade Helm? And, indeed, over the last year, InfoWars and the Drudge Report and Jim Hoft’s Gateway Pundit blog have all pulled in record amounts of traffic, despite peddling demonstrably untrue stories as cold, irrefutable fact.
But the Left has its own nonsense. How many liberals still believe that George W. Bush “stole” the 2000 presidential election? Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine, hardly a denizen of the fever swamps, was declaring the 2000 recount stolen as recently as last month. And if you want fever swamps, consider a 2006 Scripps Howard poll found that half more than half of registered Democrats believed George W. Bush was complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks, with respondents split about evenly between calling Bush’s involvement “very likely” and “somewhat likely.”There’s a connection between the two. As “elite” media figures know, stories — true and false — trickle down, implanting themselves in the minds of hundreds of thousands or millions of citizens too busy or too lazy to do their own research. When Vox writes, “The election probably wasn’t hacked. But Clinton should request recounts just in case,” it’s legitimizing a seed of doubt. It’s no surprise, then, that Paul Krugman — Princeton economist, New York Times columnist, Nobel laureate — spent Tuesday night on Twitter calling for an “independent investigation” of election results, based on a New York Magazine report that a handful of “prominent computer scientists and election lawyers” think results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania “may have been manipulated or hacked.” There’s no meaningful evidence to support that charge, as the Times’ Nate Cohn immediately pointed out, but it’s now an active point of discussion on cable news. Where are the lines dividing “fake” news from real? Why was voter fraud a rightwing “conspiracy theory” when conservatives push it, but an urgent matter of electoral transparency now that it’s coming from liberals? Why are right-wingers fabulist nuts, but left-wingers devotees of triumphant Reason? And when Ezra Klein neglects the context that effectively invalidates his thesis, is it a mistake or a lie — or “fake” news?
A more responsible media wouldn’t create the confusion in the first place.
cosjobs
Footballguy
Isn't the AP part of the MSM? So you only trust the MSM if it supports your preconceptions?
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
ABC, NBS, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NT Times, Washington Post, LA Times, The New Republic, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, USA Today, Buzz FEED, Mashable, Gawker, Huffington Post, John Stewart and to answer your quesion directky,
Associated Press not even trying to hide their liberal bias any more.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
I don't understand how Fox isn't considered mainstream media in your definition (I mean, I do understand why you feel that way, but I just don't get how you gloss over it). I get that they tend to report from a different angle than these other outlets, but Fox is a media giant. It was the most-watched cable channel for all of Q3 2016, and O'Reilly, Kelly, and Hannity all have very strong numbers. They're as mainstream as the rest of the group; they just have a different viewer demographic and they dominate it.
You could probably throw the Wall Street Journal (the largest circulation of any newspaper in the US) in there too. It's maybe a little more business-centered but still surely the preeminent business news publication in the US.
That one guy
Footballguy
Opinion based on observation w/o evidence:
News seems to be delivered in story format nowadays, not simply fact based outline of whatever subject matter. Therefore, there must be teams/sides, winners/losers, protagonists/antagonists within the message. This pushes the reader to a pre-determined conclusion. Over time, depending on outlet of choice, the audience has been conditioned that one side is wrong and the other right. Now most people know which source will be most favorable to their point of view and simply look at headlines or first paragraph outlines for their "facts" and leave the subject matter at that.
News is a business, they need customers and are competing with the other majors for a dedicated subscriber and simply cater to them. I'm not sure there is a solution to it as we shouldn't be surprised that's how a for-profit would operate. I'm of the opinion that large national news is the problem in terms of message and that local independent sources would be better providers of "less" biased news.
Inside all of that, I think education and critical analysis by the consumer plays a pretty big role...they don't want to think much, it seems
News seems to be delivered in story format nowadays, not simply fact based outline of whatever subject matter. Therefore, there must be teams/sides, winners/losers, protagonists/antagonists within the message. This pushes the reader to a pre-determined conclusion. Over time, depending on outlet of choice, the audience has been conditioned that one side is wrong and the other right. Now most people know which source will be most favorable to their point of view and simply look at headlines or first paragraph outlines for their "facts" and leave the subject matter at that.
News is a business, they need customers and are competing with the other majors for a dedicated subscriber and simply cater to them. I'm not sure there is a solution to it as we shouldn't be surprised that's how a for-profit would operate. I'm of the opinion that large national news is the problem in terms of message and that local independent sources would be better providers of "less" biased news.
Inside all of that, I think education and critical analysis by the consumer plays a pretty big role...they don't want to think much, it seems
Max Power
Footballguy
I despised Fox during the Bush years. I was pretty neutral during most of obama's term. But CNN and several other companies has gone full rogue since the election cycle started. I watch fox now because while they slant to trump, they still roast him and offer a balanced view more than anyone else at the moment.Steve Tasker said:
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
It simply isn't possible for them.moleculo said:
tommyboy
Footballguy
KKK founded by Democrats. Look it up.
Isis is Muslim terrorist gang. They cut people s head off.
Conservatives just mind their own damn business and go to church. Wtf?
Nice stinky bait though
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Well hello I know FOX is MSM and everybody knows they are conservative I was referring to the left bias which is far more stacked than fox. Actually he was concerned most about AP so I answered that specifically.Steve Tasker said:
The WSJ I consider irrelevant because of the reasons you posted and they are more anti-tax, anti govt regulation and opposed to health care reform. If you feel better considering them conservative then know yourself out, TO me they are irrelevant to the conservation because they believe in positions not politics.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
I suppose I misunderstood your post; I thought you were just listing out the media outlets you consider to be the "mainstream media" regardless of left/right bias.
Widbil83
Footballguy
Good piece by Glenn Greenwald on this dumb Washington Post article-
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/
Last edited by a moderator:
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
The vast majority of Americans det their news from the network broadcast news and newspapersand we ALL know how they are biased. True FOX beats the others down other hard but it is still a minority after all is said and done.Steve Tasker said:
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Well, I am funny and your posts in this thread show that you're either disconnected from reality or fishing. So that is all you're going to get.
Johnnymac
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Can someone please delineate or define fake news from ordinary internet rumor mongering or Facebook chatter for me please?
The way I have been understanding 'Fake News' it refers to one of three things:
- Either ad hoc "news" sites usually carrying just one story which pop up as ads or as 'news' stories which are really just fake sites with fake news sounding names on them.
- Traditional tabloids like the Enquirer which runs startling scandal stories involving public figures. Or:
- Traditional mainstream media which run serious sounding stories about either pure speculation or speculation on others' speculation.
So something like the pizzagate phenomenon going on is really not that, it's just run of teh mill irresponsible internet rumor mongering, not really 'fake news'.
The way I have been understanding 'Fake News' it refers to one of three things:
- Either ad hoc "news" sites usually carrying just one story which pop up as ads or as 'news' stories which are really just fake sites with fake news sounding names on them.
- Traditional tabloids like the Enquirer which runs startling scandal stories involving public figures. Or:
- Traditional mainstream media which run serious sounding stories about either pure speculation or speculation on others' speculation.
So something like the pizzagate phenomenon going on is really not that, it's just run of teh mill irresponsible internet rumor mongering, not really 'fake news'.
Man in the yellow hat
Footballguy
I think you got it covered. But the thing is, now you're going to see things like pizzagate plastered all over as a show of irresponsible journalism or fake news. And you can bet your life savings it will fit nicely into the left's attack on Fox and Brietbart. They'll be painted as the enablers of fake news and spreading hate through fake news.
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
This article decrying fake news is more fake than the news it criticizes. Such a hypocritical piece that collapses on itself. There probably could be a case made for the author's hypothesis if he would throw out his own political one-sided intellectual dishonesty. As is this is a non-starter for any intelligent discussion.
(HULK)
(Smash)
You've got a camping thread that needs updating.
And when a pizza place I occasionally take my family to got shot up due to this pizzagate nonsense, I think it is absolutely correct to call Fox and Brietbart irresponsible. You don't get to call yourself "News" when you constantly broadcast propaganda and nothing else.
