12/7 - Terrorist attack

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-11-2021, 06:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Tell me you're steeped in the alt-right wing nut bullshit without telling me you're steeped in it.

I don't disagree that the "beta male" statement was in line with this reply.  I will also say that there has been a surprisingly low level of condemnation for Cuomo and Lemon on this board.  Of the two Cuomo is easily the most egregious, his conduct is by far more reprehensible than even O' Reilly, whom I loathe.  Lemon is clearly a hypocrite, his fracturing of journalistic integrity in the Smollet case being, IMO, the most damaging, but whether his actions rise to the level of Ailes or O' Reilly remains to be seen.  In any event, no effort should be expended downplaying the misdeeds of either of them simply because they aren't on Fox.  Don't even get me started on the homophobic, lying bigot that is Joy Reid, who completely escaped condemnation for her reprehensible behavior.

(12-11-2021, 08:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: That seems reasonable. I figure what one might miss when not watching this three very much not excellent news networks is how people got quite so polarized and radical. Barring few exceptions, these networks (maybe CNN not quite that much) thrive for stirring up controversy and handing out partisan talking points - with massive spins and distortions on all sides, in FOX's case also with deliberate misinformation and outright lies.

But sure, it's different for me as a foreigner trying to get a grip on how certain things are even possible, how a country full of sophisticated people can have such a dumbed down, primitive and hostile political discourse over everything. These networks are quite defining for that state of affairs, I would assume, that's why they spark my interest.

I would have, easily, labeled Fox the most partisan news organization in the past.  Maybe they still are.  But CNN and MSNBS have certainly strove to give them a run for their money of late.  I definitely don't think the direct comparisons are as dismissible as they once where, not even close.

[Belsnickel]

(12-15-2021, 02:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree that the "beta male" statement was in line with this reply.  I will also say that there has been a surprisingly low level of condemnation for Cuomo and Lemon on this board.  Of the two Cuomo is easily the most egregious, his conduct is by far more reprehensible than even O' Reilly, whom I loathe.  Lemon is clearly a hypocrite, his fracturing of journalistic integrity in the Smollet case being, IMO, the most damaging, but whether his actions rise to the level of Ailes or O' Reilly remains to be seen.  In any event, no effort should be expended downplaying the misdeeds of either of them simply because they aren't on Fox.  Don't even get me started on the homophobic, lying bigot that is Joy Reid, who completely escaped condemnation for her reprehensible behavior.

I don't disagree at all. But you'll also notice I don't usually join in on the bashing of Fox News personalities these days. We all know who these people are.

I'll stick to the AP and Reuters.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-11-2021, 06:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Tell me you're steeped in the alt-right wing nut bullshit without telling me you're steeped in it.

And the hits just keep on coming for CNN..

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/cnn-fires-producer-john-griffin-after-he-is-accused-of-grooming-girls-for-sex/ar-AAROL44?ocid=msedgntp

Must be something with the culture in that organization

[Belsnickel]

(12-15-2021, 12:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And the hits just keep on coming for CNN..

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/cnn-fires-producer-john-griffin-after-he-is-accused-of-grooming-girls-for-sex/ar-AAROL44?ocid=msedgntp

Must be something with the culture in that organization

And? Not sure why you bothered responding to me with this. I don't defend CNN.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-15-2021, 01:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Actually, Mike, I think that the nation is in a lot of trouble. 

50 million+ voters believe the election was stolen, and they are determined to make sure that Republicans take back Congress and the Presidency--by creating state laws that will insure their victory. Fox helps create and maintain the information bubble which sustains those efforts.

I watch Fox in part to understand how the damage progresses and to understand how we got here.

My Fox watching is therefore "research" of the same sort as investigative journalist conduct. It is required if I want to be an informed citizen.

I will understand much less about the state of the nation if I stop watching Fox, though I may not be watching it for "news."

You think 50 million people believe it was stolen and are on some sort of rabid mission to see it righted?  No.  Most people aren't that determined about anything.  

As for Fox news, it looks like he gets about three million viewers a night.  What do you think, maybe 1/3 are doing research?  So that's two million.  Not a whole lot of people.

[*Nately120*]

(12-15-2021, 12:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And the hits just keep on coming for CNN..

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/cnn-fires-producer-john-griffin-after-he-is-accused-of-grooming-girls-for-sex/ar-AAROL44?ocid=msedgntp

Must be something with the culture in that organization

Wait, they fired him?  Why don't they just claim he's a victim of cancel culture and call the accusers lying sluts?  

[SunsetBengal]

(12-11-2021, 06:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Tell me you're steeped in the alt-right wing nut bullshit without telling me you're steeped in it.

(12-15-2021, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And? Not sure why you bothered responding to me with this. I don't defend CNN.

Because of your 1st response, to an earlier post of mine.  One does not need to be steeped in "alt-right wing nut bullshit" to be able to see that CNN has pretty much went down the tubes for harboring and fostering those beta males to participate in and abet others in committing crimes against women and children, and aiding and supporting a hoaxter attempting to fleece the American general public.

[Belsnickel]

(12-15-2021, 12:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because of your 1st response, to an earlier post of mine.  One does not need to be steeped in "alt-right wing nut bullshit" to be able to see that CNN has pretty much went down the tubes for harboring and fostering those beta males to participate in and abet others in committing crimes against women and children, and aiding and supporting a hoaxter attempting to fleece the American general public.

Yeah, my comment had nothing to do with the CNN commentary and everything to do with using the whole "beta male" rhetoric that is pervasive in the alt-right/neo-fascist movements. It's a giveaway that someone is steeped into that culture.

I genuinely could not care less about criticism against CNN. If you showed me pictures of every individual named in this thread, from any news agency, I wouldn't be able to tell you who they are because I don't give a flying **** about these networks other than to say all of them are a cancer.

[GMDino]

(12-15-2021, 12:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Wait, they fired him?  Why don't they just claim he's a victim of cancel culture and call the accusers lying sluts?  

Yeah it's weird.  People are being held accountable and losing their jobs on one side and the other side wants to know why we aren't jumping up and down to defend them.  Or why we didn't share the "good news" about it.

Almost like they're projecting.  I'm *sure* that's not it.

[Dill]

(12-15-2021, 12:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You think 50 million people believe it was stolen and are on some sort of rabid mission to see it righted?  No.  Most people aren't that determined about anything.  

As for Fox news, it looks like he gets about three million viewers a night.  What do you think, maybe 1/3 are doing research?  So that's two million.  Not a whole lot of people.

Tucker alone got some 4.3 million a night during the second quarter of 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson_Tonight

4 million viewers a night doesn't mean ONLY 4 million ever, same people every night. And in addition to Fox tv programming, there are its radio shows and the audiences of even further right news sources such as Newsmax and OANN.  Many have rejected Fox in favor of more radical sources, including blogs.

The 50 million+ GOP voters who believe the election was stolen--that number is derived from polling which has held steady since 6/1. 

You added the adjective "rabid." Those fifty million+ do not each and everyone need to be on a "mission." All they have to do is 1) believe the lie, 2) not object when "rabid" leadership replaces state election officials who won't do Trump's bidding, and 3) of course vote. That could be enough in enough swing states to throw the election for Trump.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/13/briefing/anti-democratic-movement-us-politics.html

. . . An anti-democratic movement, inspired by Donald Trump but much larger than him, is making significant progress, as my colleague Charles Homans has reported. In the states that decide modern presidential elections, this movement has already changed some laws and ousted election officials, with the aim of overturning future results. It has justified the changes with blatantly false statements claiming that Biden did not really win the 2020 election.

The movement has encountered surprisingly little opposition. Most leading Republican politicians have either looked the other way or supported the anti-democratic movement. In the House, Republicans ousted Liz Cheney from a leadership position because she called out Trump’s lies.

The pushback within the Republican Party has been so weak that about 60 percent of Republican adults now tell pollsters that they believe the 2020 election was stolen — a view that’s simply wrong....

All of which has created a remarkable possibility: In the 2024 presidential election, Republican officials in at least one state may overturn a legitimate election result, citing fraud that does not exist, and award the state’s electoral votes to the Republican nominee. Trump tried to use this tactic in 2020, but local officials rebuffed him.

Since then, his supporters have launched a campaign — with the Orwellian name “Stop the Steal” — to ensure success next time. Steve Bannon has played a central role, using his podcast to encourage Trump supporters to take over positions in election administration, ProPublica has explained.

“This is a five-alarm fire,” Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic secretary of state in Michigan, who presided over the 2020 vote count there, told The Times. “If people in general, leaders and citizens, aren’t taking this as the most important issue of our time and acting accordingly, then we may not be able to ensure democracy prevails again in ’24.”

[hollodero]

(12-15-2021, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: One reason why I don't see them as equivalent is because I believe I have learned a lot about law and politics and history from watching MSNBC--at least from Maddow and Haines, whom I mainly watch. 

Fair enough. As stated too many times, I also don't see them as equivalent. I don't know Hayes as much (except that you spelled him wrong), but Maddow, sure, she does some good journalism. That doesn't mean she isn't a hack, which she absolutely is. The guest list alone is a giveaway, and how she interviews them. The only ones that could be faced with a tough question are outsiders like Andrew Yang. When Harris, Hillary etc. are on, it's a love fest that is not news, but a liberal talk show. And the same goes for most others.

(12-15-2021, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Where, in your view, is MSNBC/CNN trying to steer its audience?

AS I said, CNN maybe not as much, though folks ike Don Lemon are definitely partisan hacks. A main indicator, again, are the guests. But they also shed a certain perspective on current events, usually the "liberals got it right, non-liberals are backwards" trope. Extremes are inviting Cohen all the time to topics he has no knowledge about, but makes a buck to be snarky and anti-Trump. Or Avenatti that got passed around and worshipped and declared a potential presidential candidate and whatnot. Or Mary Trump giving unqualifieg psych evaluations. Especially awful, imho, are the one after Maddow (O'Donnell) or Joy Reed. Whre regularly people claim whings like black people getting hunted down on the streets like animals and things like that, that are definitely meant to steer the audience towards believing police is racist as a whole and other conclusions that are not so much factual as they are polemic. In the end, conservatives are the enemy and the democrats are the path to salvation, that message is not really veiled.
EG. Joy Reed, imho the worst of all, called Ron Johnsen "way of Moscow", and this is too much to claim without evidence, even though that guy sure is an idiot. Or posts pictures of a 2019 beach in Miami to slam Florida for breaking Covid rules. Someone said the repulicans subverted the 2000 election, which is a spin. Others speculate a lot about "maybe there was wrongdoing, I just ask questions", even Maddow does that all the time without hard proof, especialy with Russia connections. They prejudge thingsa like the Rittenhouse incident or jump on things like this MAGA guy smirking at a native and declare it a big deal. I heard rumors about Trump hiring black people for his rallies, given to me by MSNBC quite some times without any proof whatsoever again, but it feels right, doesn't it, so one can say it. This list could go on for a long long time. But my only real proof would be to ask you to watch their programs regularly for a day or two (which I did for some time). If you cannot see what I mean at all, then there's little I can say anyway. To me it's quite apparent, in matters large and small. MSNBC is in may ways to the democratic party what FOX is to the republican party, albeit, I say it again, without some of the FOX extremes.

(12-15-2021, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: How does redressing/correcting Fox disinformation make them part of the problem, not a "force of good"?

That's not really a fair question. I didn't say that addressing FOX misinformation is the thing that makes them bad. Loyalty and partisanship is, and the polemic and the always liberal-leaning interpretation of events etc. Of course calling FOX out for belittling the insurrection attempt etc etc is not among those things.

(12-15-2021, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Do you have special commentators in mind? Have you an example of the "massive spin" you find there?

Sure, on MSNBC almost all of them I know, of course to different extents. Names I already named are O'Donnell, Reed, Lemon, Mika Brz... whatever possibly; of course I wouldn't know all of the hosts. If you tell me somewone like Katy Tur is ok, then I wouldn't know any better.

(12-15-2021, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Are there political commentators with daily/weakly shows anywhere whom you don't think are partisan hacks? 

Sure, there are some that aren't that bad. Like Wallace on FOX. I'd say quite some CNN hosts aren't that bad, I wanna say Anderson Cooper? But I don't know them as well, and neither do I know he Sunday people, maybe they do not deserve my critizism. On MSNBC, hm. Yeah, some I find bearable, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone that is not clearly a liberal putting a spin on things. Maybe Joe Scarborough (though he is unbearable in his own rights). Or the guy on MTP, I find him tolerable.

(12-15-2021, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Just trying to get a sense of your standards

Sure, my standard are possibly European news. And my country is way less perfect that maybe Germany (lots of political influence still), but there's hardly a current anchor that I can identify with a certain political party or a certain political leaning here. Imho, that's how actual news should be. No favors, no moderation already clearly showing what the opinion of the network is, hard questions for everyone. They still can call a lie a lie and given the current state, they still could paint the Republican party on the brink of becoming subversive and anti-democratic.
For sure, we have somewhat transparent press subsidies and hence the news are not so much made for profit. Which I guess makes a lot of differeence. FOX or MSNBC has to serve its audience and give them what they want.

(12-15-2021, 01:54 AM)Dill Wrote: And this matters because, from my perspective, the current Fox/right wing disinformation campaign sustains itself in great part on false media equivalencies--like Cuomo = Tucker, and "both sides" spin fake news every day.

Yeah again and for the last time, I am not doing that. I'm just not going as far as to declare CNN or MSNBC immune from critizism just because they are the counterpart to the evil FOX network.
Bels, as a liberal and American, called them all a cancer too. It's not just me seeing it pretty much that way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-16-2021, 12:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: Fair enough. As stated too many times, I also don't see them as equivalent. I don't know Hayes as much (except that you spelled him wrong), but Maddow, sure, she does some good journalism. That doesn't mean she isn't a hack, which she absolutely is. The guest list alone is a giveaway, and how she interviews them. The only ones that could be faced with a tough question are outsiders like Andrew Yang. When Harris, Hillary etc. are on, it's a love fest that is not news, but a liberal talk show. And the same goes for most others.



AS I said, CNN maybe not as much, though folks ike Don Lemon are definitely partisan hacks. A main indicator, again, are the guests. But they also shed a certain perspective on current events, usually the "liberals got it right, non-liberals are backwards" trope. Extremes are inviting Cohen all the time to topics he has no knowledge about, but makes a buck to be snarky and anti-Trump. Or Avenatti that got passed around and worshipped and declared a potential presidential candidate and whatnot. Or Mary Trump giving unqualifieg psych evaluations. Especially awful, imho, are the one after Maddow (O'Donnell) or Joy Reed. Whre regularly people claim whings like black people getting hunted down on the streets like animals and things like that, that are definitely meant to steer the audience towards believing police is racist as a whole and other conclusions that are not so much factual as they are polemic. In the end, conservatives are the enemy and the democrats are the path to salvation, that message is not really veiled.
EG. Joy Reed, imho the worst of all, called Ron Johnsen "way of Moscow", and this is too much to claim without evidence, even though that guy sure is an idiot. Or posts pictures of a 2019 beach in Miami to slam Florida for breaking Covid rules. Someone said the repulicans subverted the 2000 election, which is a spin. Others speculate a lot about "maybe there was wrongdoing, I just ask questions", even Maddow does that all the time without hard proof, especialy with Russia connections. They prejudge thingsa like the Rittenhouse incident or jump on things like this MAGA guy smirking at a native and declare it a big deal. I heard rumors about Trump hiring black people for his rallies, given to me by MSNBC quite some times without any proof whatsoever again, but it feels right, doesn't it, so one can say it. This list could go on for a long long time. But my only real proof would be to ask you to watch their programs regularly for a day or two (which I did for some time). If you cannot see what I mean at all, then there's little I can say anyway. To me it's quite apparent, in matters large and small. MSNBC is in may ways to the democratic party what FOX is to the republican party, albeit, I say it again, without some of the FOX extremes.



That's not really a fair question. I didn't say that addressing FOX misinformation is the thing that makes them bad. Loyalty and partisanship is, and the polemic and the always liberal-leaning interpretation of events etc. Of course calling FOX out for belittling the insurrection attempt etc etc is not among those things.



Sure, on MSNBC almost all of them I know, of course to different extents. Names I already named are O'Donnell, Reed, Lemon, Mika Brz... whatever possibly; of course I wouldn't know all of the hosts. If you tell me somewone like Katy Tur is ok, then I wouldn't know any better.



Sure, there are some that aren't that bad. Like Wallace on FOX. I'd say quite some CNN hosts aren't that bad, I wanna say Anderson Cooper? But I don't know them as well, and neither do I know he Sunday people, maybe they do not deserve my critizism. On MSNBC, hm. Yeah, some I find bearable, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone that is not clearly a liberal putting a spin on things. Maybe Joe Scarborough (though he is unbearable in his own rights). Or the guy on MTP, I find him tolerable.



Sure, my standard are possibly European news. And my country is way less perfect that maybe Germany (lots of political influence still), but there's hardly a current anchor that I can identify with a certain political party or a certain political leaning here. Imho, that's how actual news should be. No favors, no moderation already clearly showing what the opinion of the network is, hard questions for everyone. They still can call a lie a lie and given the current state, they still could paint the Republican party on the brink of becoming subversive and anti-democratic.
For sure, we have somewhat transparent press subsidies and hence the news are not so much made for profit. Which I guess makes a lot of differeence. FOX or MSNBC has to serve its audience and give them what they want.



Yeah again and for the last time, I am not doing that. I'm just not going as far as to declare CNN or MSNBC immune from critizism just because they are the counterpart to the evil FOX network.
Bels, as a liberal and American, called them all a cancer too. It's not just me seeing it pretty much that way.

This is an excellent post.  I wholeheartedly agree that Fox was, by far, the most partisan actor among the major news networks until rather recently.  But MSNBC and CNN have really decided to give them a run for their money.  Ironically, this really started with Trump lambasting them, usually unfairly.  It really does seem like some news agencies, and definitely some "reporters" and pundits, took that personally and, here's the irony part, they actually became what Trump was describing, albeit to a lesser degree in most cases.  There are many, and we have several on this board, who refuse to acknowledge this and seem stuck in the "Fox News bad" paradigm.  

I watch a lot of news media, from several sources, and Fox's coverage of the Rittenhouse trial, as one example, was light years better from a journalism standard, than any of their contemporaries.  All of the channels had their own stated position on this trial, no not officially, but obviously from the content of their pundits on the subject, but Fox had, by far, the best fact based coverage of the trial. 

You are spot on about Joy Reid, btw, I absolutely loathe her.  She's absolutely a bigoted homophobe and the content of her show makes me strongly suspect she harbors a lot of racist beliefs just bubbling under the surface.  That's certainly my opinion, but it's not solely based on opinion.

[*Nately120*]

(12-16-2021, 12:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I watch a lot of news media, from several sources, and Fox's coverage of the Rittenhouse trial, as one example, was light years better from a journalism standard, than any of their contemporaries.  All of the channels had their own stated position on this trial, no not officially, but obviously from the content of their pundits on the subject, but Fox had, by far, the best fact based coverage of the trial. 

Without getting too effusive with the praise for Fox on this one (not saying you are) it is beyond easy to stick to facts and logic when they fit the narrative you're being told to sell to your audience.  In the USA we have a rather sadly specific left vs right battle on the subject of "good shoot or bad shoot" trials.  

The facts say Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't guilty, so Fox sticks to the facts and the left delves into the grey areas and speculation. The facts also said that the officer who killed George Floyd (or another police killing case, I can't keep track) was guilty and the left kept to the facts and the right started going into the speculation and grey area and so on.

I recall hearing people say that perhaps the police who were being found guilty were a product of left wing mobs intimidating judges and juries, but I don't recall any right wing sources admitting that Kyle Rittenhouse had an intimidating force of armed right-wingers on his side.  

I understand how the for-profit news cycle goes, and the importance of facts fluctuates depending on how well said facts align with the narrative your audience wants.  Congrats to Fox for sticking to the facts and the faith in the justice system for Kyle, but next let's talk about how what you saw with your own eyes on 1/6 was a lie and how the facts are misleading and the justice system is biased and flawed.  Give 'em what they want.

It's the old adage:  If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-17-2021, 12:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Without getting too effusive with the praise for Fox on this one (not saying you are) it is beyond easy to stick to facts and logic when they fit the narrative you're being told to sell to your audience.  In the USA we have a rather sadly specific left vs right battle on the subject of "good shoot or bad shoot" trials.  

Respectfully, you literally made my point for me.  If you claim to be a news organization then facts are all you should care about.  I'm not talking about op-ed punditry, that can skew any way you like, but an obvious effort should be made to distinguish these pundits from your actual hard news.  Having said pundit on a hard news segment inextricably blurs the line.

If you're a "news organization" you don't have a narrative, you have facts.  Otherwise you're not a news organization but a propaganda organ, and yes I include Fox in that.

[*Nately120*]

(12-17-2021, 01:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Respectfully, you literally made my point for me.  If you claim to be a news organization then facts are all you should care about.  I'm not talking about op-ed punditry, that can skew any way you like, but an obvious effort should be made to distinguish these pundits from your actual hard news.  Having said pundit on a hard news segment inextricably blurs the line.

If you're a "news organization" you don't have a narrative, you have facts.  Otherwise you're not a news organization but a propaganda organ, and yes I include Fox in that.

I wasn't aware I was attempting to disagree with you, rather than just pointing out that for-profit news has an agenda, and Fox having the luxury of being able to lean on facts in the Rittenhouse case while they make up a bunch of bs for the insurrection stuff, shows it.  

But doesn't this all go back to the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine in the Reagan era?  I view this the same way as I view a lot of things, where people will say they want one thing, but then act in a manner which opposes what they JUST said they want as soon as it benefits them.

People say they want fair true reporting and that they believe facts.  The issue is that it is easier to convince yourself that what you want to believe is true and fair and factual rather than evaluate your views and reality.  It reminds me of when a flag is on the field in an NFL game and fans wait on the edge of their seat to see which team it is against before they decide if it is a bad call or not.

This goes back to Fox News using "fair and balanced" as a marketing term.  It always had that sort of pathetic stink around it, like someone who is constantly trying to start a nickname for himself, or something.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-17-2021, 01:53 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I wasn't aware I was attempting to disagree with you, rather than just pointing out that for-profit news has an agenda, and Fox having the luxury of being able to lean on facts in the Rittenhouse case while they make up a bunch of bs for the insurrection stuff, shows it.

I hadn't intended for it to come across like you where.  

Quote:But doesn't this all go back to the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine in the Reagan era?  I view this the same way as I view a lot of things, where people will say they want one thing, but then act in a manner which opposes what they JUST said they want as soon as it benefits them.

I would largely agree with this.

Quote:People say they want fair true reporting and that they believe facts.  The issue is that it is easier to convince yourself that what you want to believe is true and fair and factual rather than evaluate your views and reality.  It reminds me of when a flag is on the field in an NFL game and fans wait on the edge of their seat to see which team it is against before they decide if it is a bad call or not.

This is true, but it easily solved by just reporting facts and letting people make up their own minds based on those facts.  The minute you get into the skewing the facts or the presentation of facts game you start the process of no longer being a real news organization.

Quote:This goes back to Fox News using "fair and balanced" as a marketing term.  It always had that sort of pathetic stink around it, like someone who is constantly trying to start a nickname for himself, or something.  

Oh, I completely agree with this and I love to call it out whenever it happens.  Both parties do it with the naming of their bills, Patriot Act for example.  Oppressive governments do it all the time, Peoples Republic of North Korea.  Hell, there are posters here who swallow this type of tripe with a smile on their face when you talk about Antifa.  I mean their name is literally "anti-fascist" how can anyone be against that?!?  Which, of course, ignores how blatantly fascist that organization is.  I suppose that was a long winded way of saying this kind of tactic gets used because many people fall for it.

[Belsnickel]

(12-17-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is true, but it easily solved by just reporting facts and letting people make up their own minds based on those facts.  The minute you get into the skewing the facts or the presentation of facts game you start the process of no longer being a real news organization.

While I agree with you in theory, let's keep in mind that people don't want the facts. The majority of "news" consumed in this country is profit driven. It is corporate owned and filled with advertisements. They are not selling the news, they are selling the viewers/readers just as social media sites are doing. They are selling us to advertisers. In order to do that, they need consumers of their media. Just look at ratings of Fox, CNN, MSNBC compared to C-Span or PBS NewsHour. Compare listenership of NPR news to one of the corporate ones out there (I don't even know who they are, anymore) or compared to the podcasts the claim to be news. Compare readership of NY Post, WSJ, NY Times, Washington Post, etc., online or print, to something like the websites of the wire agencies like AP and Reuters.

The non-corporate examples aren't even strictly fact-based, there is some flavor in their product, but even with that they don't draw the same audience because that is not what people actually want. If the people don't want it then these companies producing their news for profits aren't going to make any changes.

I don't like a government run media because the media should be adversarial to the state. But profit driven media will always be highly editorialized because of the need to sell eyes to their advertisers.

[Stewy]

(12-09-2021, 12:16 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Does anyone else not see a problem with this ?

"Arson is only considered a felony in New York if the arsonist harms or attempts to harm a person, or carries out the attack as a hate crime"

So am I wrong to assume you could literally burn up any empty building/structure(No matter what monetary value it had) & walk right out without posting any kind of bail.

1st responders are people.  A fireman shows up and gets sent to the hospital or gets treated on scene for any minor injury = they got hurt = felony arson.  If you set fire to a structure the FDP is going to show up, and the odds of them getting a minor injury is very high.  So I don't see this staying a misdemeanor for any kind of significant fire set in a structure.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-17-2021, 03:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I agree with you in theory, let's keep in mind that people don't want the facts. The majority of "news" consumed in this country is profit driven. It is corporate owned and filled with advertisements. They are not selling the news, they are selling the viewers/readers just as social media sites are doing. They are selling us to advertisers. In order to do that, they need consumers of their media. Just look at ratings of Fox, CNN, MSNBC compared to C-Span or PBS NewsHour. Compare listenership of NPR news to one of the corporate ones out there (I don't even know who they are, anymore) or compared to the podcasts the claim to be news. Compare readership of NY Post, WSJ, NY Times, Washington Post, etc., online or print, to something like the websites of the wire agencies like AP and Reuters.

The non-corporate examples aren't even strictly fact-based, there is some flavor in their product, but even with that they don't draw the same audience because that is not what people actually want. If the people don't want it then these companies producing their news for profits aren't going to make any changes.

I don't like a government run media because the media should be adversarial to the state. But profit driven media will always be highly editorialized because of the need to sell eyes to their advertisers.

I get that, but I don't know if I agree with your conclusion.  I also think comparing print media to television/internet media isn't a great comparison as fewer and fewer people rely on print media.  I think if a media outlet came out that just reported straight facts without bias, made a clear separation between op-ed and the hard news, and had both a right and left leaning pundit they would have a much bigger audience than you believe.

I liken it to the current trend towards fast food that only does one thing.  For a very long time the trend was for fast food locations to have more and more variety.  Now the really popular franchises are your Raising Canes, In 'n Out, Chick Fil-A, etc. that focus one doing one thing well.  I honestly believe that many people are starved for real news and it would do much better than you think.

[Belsnickel]

(12-17-2021, 04:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get that, but I don't know if I agree with your conclusion.  I also think comparing print media to television/internet media isn't a great comparison as fewer and fewer people rely on print media.  I think if a media outlet came out that just reported straight facts without bias, made a clear separation between op-ed and the hard news, and had both a right and left leaning pundit they would have a much bigger audience than you believe.

I liken it to the current trend towards fast food that only does one thing.  For a very long time the trend was for fast food locations to have more and more variety.  Now the really popular franchises are your Raising Canes, In 'n Out, Chick Fil-A, etc. that focus one doing one thing well.  I honestly believe that many people are starved for real news and it would do much better than you think.

I throw print in there because their business model is the same. They are selling eyes to advertisers. I think my cynicism lies in how highly rated these stations and programs tend to be. There is a lot of noise about how bad these outlets are, but then the people who complain about the ones they disagree with are indulging in the ones that are as bad or worse that they do agree with. That's just what I see 90% of the time.