sho nuff
Footballguy
Except it was my point. Including saying it was propaganda to be all glowing about Biden.
Makes it worse? Not really, the timing is why it captured the tone of the times we were in.
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
Makes it worse? Not really, the timing is why it captured the tone of the times we were in.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Not quite...I saw something about crept up...and caught the dog by surprise or something.
What if that is exactly what happened. Agent comes up behind the dog and gets nipped.
Sorry...Im pretty dog friendly and not going to blame a dog.
I don't see a thing wrong with the article...seemed a nitpick to complain about media.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Can you imagine if Trump had a dog and this happened?
The Democrats would have been drawing up articles of impeachment the next day.
djmich
Footballguy
Puppies nip. Nips don't require medical attention and those are not puppies. Crazy the gymnastics to downplay anything negative.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
It didnt even break the skin, not sure what to even call that other than a nip. There is nothing to downplay.
My tongue was firmly in cheek.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Project veritas wins legal victory against New York times: https://thepostmillennial.com/supreme-court-ny-times-project-veritas-disinformation
still think the MSM isn't pushing agendas?
Open your eyes.
still think the MSM isn't pushing agendas?
Open your eyes.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I'm not about to defend the NYT on this stuff, but I think this article is substantially misleading when it says "The New York Supreme Court has ruled against The New York Times, finding that they used "actual malice" and acted with "reckless disregard" in several articles attacking Project Veritas."
This was only a ruling on the NYT's motion to dismiss the complaint. Despite all the election lawsuits we saw dismissed over the past few months, the reality is it is very hard and very rare to get a case outright dismissed based on the pleadings. In this case, the judge is allowing the case to proceed because he has ruled that the Project Veritas lawyers successfully plead all the proper allegations in their complaint. Its a huge embarrassment as a plaintiff to lose on a motion to dismiss, and really not much of a victory just to have your case proceed, but certainly it is true that the NYT Motion to Dismiss was denied. That said, the judge did acknowledge that the Project Veritas team has a very difficult case in front of them.
the written opinion is here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20518694/order_denying_motion_to_dismiss.pdf
sho nuff
Footballguy
That was bad of them...doesn’t arise to enough to say they aren’t a decemt overall source based on that. If they do that often...sure...cross them off.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
The Big Donkey
Footballguy
Can't even trust 60 minutes anymore. smh
I love Publix, you all should have a Publix. Chicken Tender subs for all!
I love Publix, you all should have a Publix. Chicken Tender subs for all!
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Just incredible. Right up there with NYT and CNN where they are simply destroying their "brand" decades in the making.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
The 60 Minutes piece is interesting because -- of course -- this isn't the first time 60 Minutes aired a partisan hit-piece using outright fraud and deceit. The "Bush National Guard" story back in 2004 was similar. But boy oh boy was the reaction different. That travesty got gigantic media coverage. It ended Dan Rather's career, which is honestly pretty amazing if you remember just how much of a media institution he was back then.
By way of contrast, everybody just kind of sailed right past the DeSantis/Publix story as if this is just how media outlooks work these days. I don't think that's an accident. I think it's just a lot more widely believed by people inside the media that it's their job to be partisan.
By way of contrast, everybody just kind of sailed right past the DeSantis/Publix story as if this is just how media outlooks work these days. I don't think that's an accident. I think it's just a lot more widely believed by people inside the media that it's their job to be partisan.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Hi. Welcome to the thread about media criticism. There will be a standard auto reply in a few moments pointing out that nothing has changed with the media and you are incorrect. Soon after it will be followed by a standard auto reply telling you that if you dont like the media you should stop consuming any of it.
Also please remember next time if you are going to post in here you must include a link from one of the approved sources or make sure to clarify that what you are saying is just a meritless opinion.
Enjoy your time in the thread.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
I just want to add that you don't need to provide links if you declare that the source is "anonymous". "Anonymous" sources are 100% legit and entirely acceptable and to be believed without question.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bucsfan5493
Footballguy
Australian woman dies after receiving COVID-19 vaccine, officials say
Garbage, click-bait headline from the NY Post here. Later on in the article they mention this:
Garbage, click-bait headline from the NY Post here. Later on in the article they mention this:
sho nuff
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
I think I commented already...what they did was wrong. And it seems it wasn't the first time. I don't watch the show...haven't in years.
Is it a repeating pattern more than from Bush to now (just the examples that have been brought up in here)?
Bucsfan5493
Footballguy
Looks like 60 Minutes/CBS was already covered in this thread a couple of days ago, but yes, their story on DeSantis was very dishonest and had a clear partisan agenda. They have deservingly been called out for it throughout the week.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
The funny thing about the 60 Minutes hit is that, because there's no accountability, there is a 100% likelihood that some who aren't aware it was debunked will bring up the "Publix scandal" against DeSantis in the future. And most who know better, will let them get away with it.
CBS News/60 minutes at it again. The following article makes it sound like in Mid March people in one area couldn't get vaccinated until Anquan Boldin acted and helped get a vaccination site in the area:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anquan-boldin-vaccine-60-minutes-2021-04-04/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7d&linkId=115487485
It turns out the events Anquan put in motion happened in EARLY FEBRUARY. Even one of the main players mentioned is calling out the story, as happened with the previous 60 minutes hit piece:
https://twitter.com/JohnFDavisJD/status/1379236833993822209
Can we remove CBS/60 minutes from the "approved sources" list now?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anquan-boldin-vaccine-60-minutes-2021-04-04/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7d&linkId=115487485
It turns out the events Anquan put in motion happened in EARLY FEBRUARY. Even one of the main players mentioned is calling out the story, as happened with the previous 60 minutes hit piece:
https://twitter.com/JohnFDavisJD/status/1379236833993822209
Can we remove CBS/60 minutes from the "approved sources" list now?
djmich
Footballguy
Completely neutral headline, no bias here, not trying to tell the reader what to think at all.
NYT
Breaking News: President Biden will create a panel to study expanding the Supreme Court in an effort to balance the conservative majority created by Donald Trump.
Did Trump kill RBG?
How come their headline for the Georgia voting law wasn’t, GOP updates laws in effort to correct voting imbalance created by Joe Biden?
NYT
Breaking News: President Biden will create a panel to study expanding the Supreme Court in an effort to balance the conservative majority created by Donald Trump.
Did Trump kill RBG?
How come their headline for the Georgia voting law wasn’t, GOP updates laws in effort to correct voting imbalance created by Joe Biden?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
In addition to the ideological bias that you pointed out, I've noticed a trend of headlines referencing Trump in stories that don't really involve Trump. The court's conservative majority (such that it is) dates back to Bush, not Trump. But put "Trump" in the headline and you get clicks.
rockaction
Footballguy
Bad news. 10% of Republicans not believing in the media is a real problem. I agree with tim about one thing: In order to have a proper debate about issues, one needs to be proceeding from similar facts. If "alternative" facts are being offered by right-wing media outlets (and I think they are) then there really is no hope for a common ground, only further polarization of the parties and their respective news bureaus of choice. Some lament that Republicans don't trust the MSM and are therefore less fact-based in their opinions and some lament that the media has to change, especially the narrative with which they deliver the facts.
I'd say both are correct. The facts are often there in the MSM, but the narrative is faulty, and sometimes the omission of facts or non-stories is as important as printed facts themselves. 60 Minutes has always been a sensationalist/left news show. It's no surprise people don't trust it anymore. Same with CBS and NBC. There's no reason, since 1994, to trust either news outlet. I can remember Peter Jennings in 1994 saying that Americans had thrown "a tantrum" in electing a Republican House. That was their reaction to a democratic vote. It was indicative of what the talking heads thought, and more importantly, what the news editors at those stations thought. How on earth can a news agency like ABC have a former Clinton communications director as its anchor and expect people to not view it politically?
So this has been going on a long time. Trump exacerbated it, and the identity spoken of in the article is now hardened. It was, for a time, legit to bash to editors and talking heads, but now there seems to be no excuse for following lockstep with it. One needs to use multiple sources to get to the truth of nearly any matter. It's a sad state of affairs, and only the most conscientious of citizens will be able to suss out the noise from the song. We're choking on the icing on the cake without getting to the cake, as it were. So again, these polls are really bad news.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NYT admits they're not news, they publish opinion. I believe them because of the mountain of evidence that supports their position.djmich said:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This article makes some good points as far as Fox News viewers go.
That said, I honestly don't see how a person could have lived through 2020 and not come away as anti-legacy-media. CNN, Fox News, NYT, etc. have all been spreading fear and misinformation since this thing started. The specific type of fear and misinformation that CNN spreads isn't the same as the fear and misinformation that Fox News spread, but they're qualitatively similar in that people who rely on these kinds of sources for news aren't as well informed as they should be if we had a better-functioning media.
The good news is that we currently live in world where there's unprecedented access to good, high-quality information and analysis. You don't have to rely on partisan gatekeepers. If you follow the right people on social media, you were six weeks ahead of everybody else throughout the entire pandemic. You knew in January 2020 that covid wasn't just the flu and that you should start preparing accordingly. You knew in March 2020 that you should probably be wearing a mask when you go out. You knew this time last year that going to the beach or going for a run outdoors was safe. You knew six months ago that vaccines were pretty darn effective, and you weren't freaking out over The Variants. You knew that vaccinated people probably don't transmit the virus. You know that there's no covid-related reason to wear a mask after you're fully vaccinated.
You've probably seen that poll that's making the rounds showing how vaccinated people are actually still more scared of covid than non-vaccinated people. Some of that is obviously selection bias -- people who are scared of covid, like me, are first in line for vaccination -- but a big driver of that is the media simultaneously freaking people out and downplaying the effectiveness of vaccines. (The government is bad here too, but this thread is about the media, not Fauci).
I can't imagine why I would ever go back to those people for any kind of serious news. Certainly not for anything requiring more analysis than reporting the daily close of the S&P 500 or other stuff like that that they can't possibly screw up.
The cool thing about the internet is that we have easy access to people who are invested in getting things right. It's not that they're "objective." Scott Alexander, Matt Yglesias, Andrew Sullivan, Noah Smith, Robin Hanson, Alex Tabarrok, etc. [edit: how can I leave Nate Silver off this list, in a response to a 538 article] aren't and never claimed to be objective. They all have ideological priors that they're very open about. But they provide solid, intellectually honest analysis. And while they're ideological, they're not partisan. They're aware of what motivated reasoning is, and they at least genuinely try to avoid it.
Why would I want to impoverish myself by following the legacy media when I have direct access to folks like that on the little piece of glass I carry around in my pocket?
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
All of those guys are great, but they don't report news. They comment on news, but they rely on the NYT et al. to get the actual news that they're commenting on. I'd wager that every person on that list regularly reads the NYT or WaPo, probably both.
And I think the reporters at NYT and WaPo are also aware of what motivated reasoning is and genuinely try to avoid it. They're human, so they sometimes fail. And they're not as smart or as independent-minded as the people on your list, so their biases more reliably line up with a conventional wing -- overwhelmingly the left one. That's a real problem, difficult to solve. I don't know how news organizations are supposed to attract more right-leaning personnel. It's the same problem engineering programs face when trying to attract more women. Not all demographic groups are equally interested in all occupations, and conservatives don't seem particularly drawn to news reporting (or teaching, or stand-up comedy...)
In any case, the NYT and WaPo, though imperfect, are still ultimately pretty good. The right-wing vitriol against them is based less in reality than in ... not reality. If there is a crisis in this country related to media consumption, I think it's the tendency of many conservatives to get most of their "news" from sources that are explicitly not news -- Hannity, Carlson, Dobbs, Ingraham, et al. I don't see that same phenomenon occurring with liberals.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I think that's a noteworthy part of it, though obviously not the whole story.
djmich
Footballguy
What is news? Is there really some sort of news crisis? That a cop was killed? That a citizen was killed? That the Dow is 20k? Are there really disagreement about these facts? Does Hannity say the cop is alive while CNN say he’s dead? Because to me the news ends there and then the slanted reporting of speculation as news and opinion begins regardless of what channel you are watching. Why is Don Lemon different from Lou Dobbs?
The bolded is a crazy big generalization and I think artificially limiting of where conservatives get their “news” from. In terms of legacy/traditional MSM sources yes Fox is basically the source...because it literally is about the only right leaning source. But as Ivan indicated social media is completely overtaking traditional media, conservative or liberal, as a source of news. I found out DMX died today without needing to wander into a MSM outlet. I frankly get a decent chunk of my news here. But again, news is the easy part, the story around it is the meat.
I’m inferring you think CNN’s “story” around news events is better than Fox’s. I don’t necessarily disagree and sort of don’t care because we’re just arguing about different degrees and shades of bias.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know what's driving that inference. I never mentioned CNN. I mentioned the NYT and WaPo. I do think that their reporting tends to be more reliable than what's on Hannity or Carlson, yes.
The issue isn't CNN news vs. Fox news, or Don Lemon vs. Hannity.
The issue is getting info from a variety of sources including actual news vs. getting info mainly in the form of opinionated hot takes.
I personally know people who get nearly all of their "news" from Fox's lineup of opinion shows. I don't know anybody who gets all of their "news" from Lemon and Maddow while vigilantly distrusting actual news reporting,
That might be purely an artifact of the skewed sample of people I happen to know, but I don't think so.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
Gotcha on wapo and NYT and not cnn. I’m not defending fox and don’t watch it but you are specifically focused on two elements of the program from a 24hr news channel (or whatever it should be called).
I know conservatives but I don’t know anybody who gets all of their news from Hannity or Carlson. What do they do the other 14 hours they are awake...turn their cellular and television off? Maybe they only watch fox news but I don’t think that either.
And again, whats really news anymore. There are facts and interpretations. I don’t feel that there’s a crisis around facts. But I also don’t trust MSM interpretations any longer, from either side...that’s their problem not mine.
Case study: GA election law. There is a new law, should be easy enough to report on it holistically and factually without bias...I haven’t read from them but since you do is there a news report from either that you believe does that?
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of people seem to believe that the 2020 election was stolen, or that there was a lot of fraud, or at least that we don't know whether there was a lot of fraud so there may have been.
That seems like a crisis around facts, just to pick one example.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Judging from the posts and links around here, it's a also a mix of YouTube vids, pods like Shapiro, or outlets that are even farther right than Fox mixed in as well.
djmich
Footballguy
Yes, that is a good example (exception proved the rule! Lol).
Not sure how you distinguish how much Trump was responsible though vs say Hannity. Did Foxnews not call the election for a Biden?
What do you think about the reporting of the GA election Law (I edited my post above).
Yes, or they are playing tennis.
I know people who fall into both categories. Some who watch Fox opinion shows supplemented by YouTube vids and Shapiro podcasts, and others who watch Fox opinion shows and don't really use the internet much so they just do gardening or tennis or their jobs or whatever during the day.
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich
Footballguy
Me personally, the whole past four years has made me a much more “aware” consumer of news. This has driven me not to discount any source or completely trust it.
I don’t throw out Shapiro, but I don’t just trust him either. Of course he’s right, that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.
Yes, some outlets are even more right of fox, I don’t think that’s necessarily bad any more than msnbc is bad...but wish there was more center right. Too bad NYT,wapo,abc,nbc,cbs,cnn didn’t step in to fill the void
djmich
Footballguy
Ok will add to my to-do list to see if wiki is straight down center on their inclusion of facts in this case.
I know you’ve referenced using them in the past, I need to check them out more often.
But why no wapo or NYT?
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I should have been more clear. I meant sources that are far right+not great at reporting. looking at the media bias chart and sites like it, you are far more likely to get a link or reference to something on that spectrum from the right than an equivalent from the left.
not saying not to listen to these independently, like Shapiro, but if someone has gone down that "don't trust lamestream media" rabbit hole and mostly consume Carlson, Shapiro, youtube video, etc because they are convinced you can't find news anywhere, that's an issue.
I'd guess that the NYT and WaPo may be among the sources cited by Wikipedia.
But I'd start with Wikipedia because it's a lot easier to find the right article. It has a good search engine, and Google works well with it also. It will have a single main article on the subject that is constantly updated. The NYT, by contrast, will have a bunch of different articles from different days, so the info is scattered. Also, if you just search the NYT, you might end up with opinion rather than news since it offers both.
