(01-29-2021, 07:17 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Zip tie guys mom’s basement. Qmoron shamans mom’s basement. Platforms where the business owner isn’t afraid to be linked to domestic terrorism and accepts the financial and legal liability that may come with it. A trailer park on Alabama. Mar a lago. There a a bunch.
Don’t try McDonalds or White Castle. I went and starting talking to a bunch of people about how we need to over throw the gov kill the dems and my Anti-cannibal-satanist views and I got kicked out. So not everywhere.
So you are limiting speech. Telling people where they are free to do it is limiting it.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Businesses calling themselves News should be limited to stating facts, not theories lightly associated with facts.
If these companies that insist on mis-representing truth changed the name of their networks to Fox Opinions, or One America Politics or Ideologymax, nobody would give a shit about limiting their speech. Since they insist on lying to people that won't fact check them, other people are concerned with what the impact of their mis-representing of facts will have on the public. See 1-6-21 if you need tangible proof of these concerns.
(01-28-2021, 02:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, when I talk about the media I am mostly referring to the companies that push out the information. The monetization of the news is what is at fault. There are many good individual reporters out there, and I love following them on social media, but the companies they work for gatekeep things to such an extent that it makes it difficult for them to do the jobs they were trained to do. In addition, money is put behind the sensational stories because they get clicks rather than the important stories. This skews everything that is out there.
Here's the thing. You and I have been saying exactly this for years now. The very interesting thing is Dill then quotes this and then cites Fox News as his only example of it. This thread could actually be interesting if we discuss this premise, that basically three major conglomerates now control the vast majority of news outlets, and all of the major ones. The news is no longer the news, even hard news items contain a large amount of editorial comment (The Guardian has become especially bad in this regard). You are told what these corporations want you to be told and only in the fashion they want it told.
Of course this fits right into the alleged premise of the thread, as the utter failure of mainstream news outlets to actually report the news in anything close to an unbiased fashion has driven people to "alternative" sources, many of which are highly partisan or highly suspect. I completely agree with you about there being many excellent individual journalists, people who actually care about the profession, it's importance and its integrity. Unfortunately very few are willing to stand up and point out where their work is being manipulated and twisted to serve various agendas. As much as I frequently disagree with Glenn Greenwald the man has the courage of his convictions and has done exactly that, even with a company he helped found. Until more journalists find a similar courage we're going to be stuck with what we currently have.
(01-29-2021, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So you are limiting speech. Telling people where they are free to do it is limiting it.
This is the chilling thing. I can't overstate how chilling it is that many on the left are for curtailing Constitutional rights because of things like this.
(01-29-2021, 12:22 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Businesses calling themselves News should be limited to stating facts, not theories lightly associated with facts.
If these companies that insist on mis-representing truth changed the name of their networks to Fox Opinions, or One America Politics or Ideologymax, nobody would give a shit about limiting their speech. Since they insist on lying to people that won't fact check them, other people are concerned with what the impact of their mis-representing of facts will have on the public. See 1-6-21 if you need tangible proof of these concerns.
I agree with your basic premise entirely. Unfortunately you're falling into the Dill trap and stating it's only right leaning sources engaged in this. While they are far less subtle about it they are not even remotely alone in engaging in it. As long as you stick to your current line of thought the actual problem will never be addressed.
(01-29-2021, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is the chilling thing. I can't overstate how chilling it is that many on the left are for curtailing Constitutional rights because of things like this.
I have a comprehension question about this. Isn't speech limited anyway? Eg. I can call Hillary a babymurdering pedophile in private, but as soon as I do so in television, I will get problems... or won't I, or shouldn't I?
Now this example is not so far away from what QAnon states, they call democrats satanists and pedophiles and many, apparantly including Ms. Marjorie, believe there should be some serious hanging of people going on. Should it really be free of consequence to say that on TV?
(Btw. the mainstream media is often quite shocking for European eyes, given how highly selective and highly opinionated their reporting is. But the right wing outlets, even worse. By quite some mileage. I think that is a fair portrayal.)
(01-29-2021, 01:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a comprehension question about this. Isn't speech limited anyway? Eg. I can call Hillary a babymurdering pedophile in private, but as soon as I do so in television, I will get problems... or won't I, or shouldn't I?
There is a line between free speech and slander, but it definitely is skewed heavily in the favor of speech. For example, Norm MacDonald (IMO the funniest man on the planet) was on The View and called Bill Clinton a murderer several times. In the US that is protected speech and Clinton would have no grounds to sue. This is why you often see libel lawsuits involving celebrities being filed in the UK or, to a lesser extent, Canada as neither of those countries enjoy anywhere close to same protections for speech.
Quote:Now this example is not so far away from what QAnon states, they call democrats satanists and pedophiles and many, apparantly including Ms. Marjorie, believe there should be some serious hanging of people going on. Should it really be free of consequence to say that on TV?
Absolutely yes. You are entitled to have any opinion you want about any subject. The problem with European style restrictions on speech is they theoretically have no limit. If you have no absolute right to speech then the government can nibble away at it at their leisure. I find it immensely disturbing that a old woman in Germany is order to prison for denying the Holocaust, while actual crimes like rape are treated with kid gloves.
I realize I am cherry picking two examples, the second one being the more extreme. But the mere idea that you can lose your liberty for having an opinion is anathema to a US citizen. It's why I found all the praise for New Zealand's response to the mosque shooter nauseating and it's a perfect example of why our Constitutional protections are so important. Being imprisoned because of what you read is the exact opposite of a free society and New Zealand should have been raked over the coals for it.
Quote:(Btw. the mainstream media is often quite shocking for European eyes, given how highly selective and highly opinionated their reporting is. But the right wing outlets, even worse. By quite some mileage. I think that is a fair portrayal.)
Eh, as I said above, I think the right leaning sites are just less subtle about it. MSNBC is easily as partisan as Fox and CNN is steadily drifting closer to MSNBC.
(01-29-2021, 01:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a comprehension question about this. Isn't speech limited anyway? Eg. I can call Hillary a babymurdering pedophile in private, but as soon as I do so in television, I will get problems... or won't I, or shouldn't I?
Now this example is not so far away from what QAnon states, they call democrats satanists and pedophiles and many, apparantly including Ms. Marjorie, believe there should be some serious hanging of people going on. Should it really be free of consequence to say that on TV?
(Btw. the mainstream media is often quite shocking for European eyes, given how highly selective and highly opinionated their reporting is. But the right wing outlets, even worse. By quite some mileage. I think that is a fair portrayal.)
There ARE limits...and they get fought in courts often.
The Secret Service can limit your proximity to the POTUS and other government officials too. You can carry your signs and scream at them, fully exercising your free speech...but it will be from "free speech zones" blocks and blocks away from where it could be heard by them.
The call for "limiting" free speech comes from whatever group feels slighted...left, right...usually because they don't understand the law.
*I* don't fully understand the laws. I just work off the premise that you can say it and no one will stop you but you also have to live with the consequences of what you said.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(01-29-2021, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is a line between free speech and slander, but it definitely is skewed heavily in the favor of speech. For example, Norm MacDonald (IMO the funniest man on the planet) was on The View and called Bill Clinton a murderer several times. In the US that is protected speech and Clinton would have no grounds to sue. This is why you often see libel lawsuits involving celebrities being filed in the UK or, to a lesser extent, Canada as neither of those countries enjoy anywhere close to same protections for speech.
I understand. I do want to mention though that Norm MacDonald (I have to check on him after your enthusiastic comment) probably quite clearly made a joke; and I gather that jokes are ok if no one could seriously regard said joke as being an earnest representation of truth or intent. Or some wording akin to that.
But that does not apply to QAnon. They are not satire, they are distinctly not joking.
Which leads me to my follow-up question. If I go on TV and claim that Hillary has murdered several babies, I've seen the proof of her evilness, and hence someone should go out and kill her, that also would be free of consequence?
Even if someone then follows through and kills her?
(01-29-2021, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely yes. You are entitled to have any opinion you want about any subject. The problem with European style restrictions on speech is they theoretically have no limit. If you have no absolute right to speech then the government can nibble away at it at their leisure. I find it immensely disturbing that a old woman in Germany is order to prison for denying the Holocaust, while actual crimes like rape are treated with kid gloves.
Yeah I tentatively agree with that. Especially the Wiederbetätigung laws (my translator says "re-engagement in national socialistic activities") is a double-edged sword for sure.
[Funny thing though, if we would not have the laws explicitly forbidding that kind of talk or action the US would not have given my country its independence back. You insisted on that one, you hypocrites :) ]
My main point against the slippery slope argument would be that in general, it hasn't turned out that way. I am aware of the exceptions though, and I have an issue with some of them, eg. filing lawsuits against someone dressing up a puppy as Hitler, or your grandma example. Yeah, evil grandma should be free.
On the other hand, calling for the murder of someone else on TV is a felony here, and I am very much in favor of that kind of free speech limitation. Same goes for outright slandering someone with false claims. Even if making slander punishable could be regarded as a limitation of free speech.
Lastly, as soon as the Arizona GOP started censuring their own for not being pro-Trump enough, I have serious doubts about their earnestness on this topic. Not about yours, of course. Just a sidenote on how selective that whole thing is.
(01-29-2021, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, as I said above, I think the right leaning sites are just less subtle about it. MSNBC is easily as partisan as Fox and CNN is steadily drifting closer to MSNBC.
I'm not defending the latter. But if Biden actually lost his mind and rambled about election fraud and hidden servers in the Ukraine and sick bastards and ugly dogs and all this nonsense, Rachel Maddow would at some point stop kissing his behind. Unlike FOX hosts, that just soldiered through Trump's daily conduct or his hour-long call-in sessions and kept calling him the greatest president ever. They parroted the stolen election narrative, and some other utter lies - and I do not see the MSM behaving akin to that.
Which is why I often catch myself giving them a pass. At least on an MSM station, I can in most instances rely on the actual facts being actually factual. Not that facts play a large part in their hour-long "now this liberal leaning host's take on the same three topics" shows, and oh let's have Mary Trump talking shit about her uncle every day for good measure. As I said, I do not really want to defend them, there's some horrific, selective, partisan propaganda going on on these stations too. But I get why so many have a bigger issue with the right-wing media. It's because they imho are demonstrably even worse.
(01-29-2021, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: I understand. I do want to mention though that Norm MacDonald (I have to check on him after your enthusiastic comment) probably quite clearly made a joke; and I gather that jokes are ok if no one could seriously regard said joke as being an earnest representation of truth or intent. Or some wording akin to that.
But that does not apply to QAnon. They are not satire, they are distinctly not joking.
Which leads me to my follow-up question. If I go on TV and claim that Hillary has murdered several babies, I've seen the proof of her evilness, and hence someone should go out and kill her, that also would be free of consequence?
Even if someone then follows through and kills her?
Yeah I tentatively agree with that. Especially the Wiederbetätigung laws (my translator says "re-engagement in national socialistic activities") is a double-edged sword for sure.
[Funny thing though, if we would not have the laws explicitly forbidding that kind of talk or action the US would not have given my country its independence back. You insisted on that one, you hypocrites :) ]
My main point against the slippery slope argument would be that in general, it hasn't turned out that way. I am aware of the exceptions though, and I have an issue with some of them, eg. filing lawsuits against someone dressing up a puppy as Hitler, or your grandma example. Yeah, evil grandma should be free.
On the other hand, calling for the murder of someone else on TV is a felony here, and I am very much in favor of that kind of free speech limitation. Same goes for outright slandering someone with false claims. Even if making slander punishable could be regarded as a limitation of free speech.
Lastly, as soon as the Arizona GOP started censuring their own for not being pro-Trump enough, I have serious doubts about their earnestness on this topic. Not about yours, of course. Just a sidenote on how selective that whole thing is.
I'm not defending the latter. But if Biden actually lost his mind and rambled about election fraud and hidden servers in the Ukraine and sick bastards and ugly dogs and all this nonsense, Rachel Maddow would at some point stop kissing his behind. Unlike FOX hosts, that just soldiered through Trump's daily conduct or his hour-long call-in sessions and kept calling him the greatest president ever. They parroted the stolen election narrative, and some other utter lies - and I do not see the MSM behaving akin to that.
Which is why I often catch myself giving them a pass. At least on an MSM station, I can in most instances rely on the actual facts being actually factual. Not that facts play a large part in their hour-long "now this liberal leaning host's take on the same three topics" shows, and oh let's have Mary Trump talking shit about her uncle every day for good measure. As I said, I do not really want to defend them, there's some horrific, selective, partisan propaganda going on on these stations too. But I get why so many have a bigger issue with the right-wing media. It's because they imho are demonstrably even worse.
Again, I can't claim complete legal knowledge of this but, to generalize, if something is so outlandish than no one would believe it it is protected.
(01-29-2021, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: I understand. I do want to mention though that Norm MacDonald (I have to check on him after your enthusiastic comment) probably quite clearly made a joke; and I gather that jokes are ok if no one could seriously regard said joke as being an earnest representation of truth or intent. Or some wording akin to that.
But that does not apply to QAnon. They are not satire, they are distinctly not joking.
You be the judge.
Quote:Which leads me to my follow-up question. If I go on TV and claim that Hillary has murdered several babies, I've seen the proof of her evilness, and hence someone should go out and kill her, that also would be free of consequence?
Even if someone then follows through and kills her?
No, because you made a direct call for illegal action. You can say someone is evil and that you believe they've committed infanticide but the minute you state that someone should kill them you've crossed the line.
Quote:Yeah I tentatively agree with that. Especially the Wiederbetätigung laws (my translator says "re-engagement in national socialistic activities") is a double-edged sword for sure.
[Funny thing though, if we would not have the laws explicitly forbidding that kind of talk or action the US would not have given my country its independence back. You insisted on that one, you hypocrites :) ]
Yeah, there's certainly an element of hypocrisy there, some "good for me but not for thee". I will cut the people of that time some slack as the atrocities of the NAZI regime were so mind blowing in scope that an overreaction like that is rather understandable. I would counter that it's been quite some time since both Austria and Germany regained full autonomy, so keeping these laws on the books now falls solely on the laps of their respective governments.
Quote:My main point against the slippery slope argument would be that in general, it hasn't turned out that way. I am aware of the exceptions though, and I have an issue with some of them, eg. filing lawsuits against someone dressing up a puppy as Hitler, or your grandma example. Yeah, evil grandma should be free.
Yes, but you've just acknowledged two examples of exactly the type of slippery slope argument that is routinely fught agains in the US.
Quote:On the other hand, calling for the murder of someone else on TV is a felony here, and I am very much in favor of that kind of free speech limitation. Same goes for outright slandering someone with false claims. Even if making slander punishable could be regarded as a limitation of free speech.
Calling for someone's murder is not protected speech, as described above. Now, slander is a different beast altogether. I'm certainly not a civil attorney but I believe that slander requires proof that you are aware you are spreading falsehoods and that the intent of spreading those falsehoods is to cause damage to the person being slandered. As one can imagine the first requirement is rather hard to prove, hence the relative lack of slander lawsuits in the US.
Quote:Lastly, as soon as the Arizona GOP started censuring their own for not being pro-Trump enough, I have serious doubts about their earnestness on this topic. Not about yours, of course. Just a sidenote on how selective that whole thing is.
Of course there's an element of hypocrisy there, but the GOP is a private entity and can impose restrictions as a requirement of membership that the government could never do within the limits of the Constitution.
Quote:I'm not defending the latter. But if Biden actually lost his mind and rambled about election fraud and hidden servers in the Ukraine and sick bastards and ugly dogs and all this nonsense, Rachel Maddow would at some point stop kissing his behind. Unlike FOX hosts, that just soldiered through Trump's daily conduct or his hour-long call-in sessions and kept calling him the greatest president ever. They parroted the stolen election narrative, and some other utter lies - and I do not see the MSM behaving akin to that.
Yes, I would agree with that, although I don't think it would happen as quickly as you suppose, especially in today's climate.
Quote:Which is why I often catch myself giving them a pass. At least on an MSM station, I can in most instances rely on the actual facts being actually factual. Not that facts play a large part in their hour-long "now this liberal leaning host's take on the same three topics" shows, and oh let's have Mary Trump talking shit about her uncle every day for good measure. As I said, I do not really want to defend them, there's some horrific, selective, partisan propaganda going on on these stations too. But I get why so many have a bigger issue with the right-wing media. It's because they imho are demonstrably even worse.
Like I said, I think they're just more brazen about it. I would agree they are degrees more extreme, but I don't think it's by as much as you may think. Honestly, I don't get any news from any of the big sources anymore. I have firsthand knowledge of absolutely false information being reported in the MSM that was so wrong it had to be deliberate as the facts were available to any journalist who actually did their job. But you don't have to take my word on this. Check out Donut Operator on YouTube (thanks again to Bel for turning me onto him) and you'll find several examples of the media flat out lying about police shootings to sensationalize a headline and get more clicks.
(01-29-2021, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Belsnickel Wrote:[i]So, when I talk about the media I am mostly referring to the companies that push out the information. [b]The monetization of the news is what is at fault. There are many good individual reporters out there, and I love following them on social media, but the companies they work for gatekeep things to such an extent that it makes it difficult for them to do the jobs they were trained to do. In addition, money is put behind the sensational stories because they get clicks rather than the important stories. This skews everything that is out there.
Here's the thing. You and I have been saying exactly this for years now. The very interesting thing is Dill then quotes this and then cites Fox News as his only example of it. This thread could actually be interesting if we discuss this premise, that basically three major conglomerates now control the vast majority of news outlets, and all of the major ones. The news is no longer the news, even hard news items contain a large amount of editorial comment (The Guardian has become especially bad in this regard). You are told what these corporations want you to be told and only in the fashion they want it told.
If you have always been saying "exactly" what Bels says, then why not start a separate thread on "monetization" of news and big business control of information?
Or--
The claim "That [we] are told what these corporations want [us] to be told and only in the fashion they want it told" is a basic premise of conspiracy theories which abound now and led to the sack of the Capitol building. Perhaps this issue is one way of relating what you have always "exactly" said to the topic of this thread. Start with the question of whether right wing viewers flock to Fox and OANN because they are tired of "corporate news" telling them what it wants them to know and only in the way it wants the news told, or because they want news that confirms their worldview. And giving them what they want has made Fox profitable.
How would a "good" and "courageous" journalist address this issue? I think by discussing actual examples rather than making sweeping, non-specific claims and declaring their truth not "debatable." E.g., The New York Times wouldn't run a questionable story on Hunter Biden's laptop when it first came to light, but the New York Post did.That difference in editorial decision/standards might make a good, empirical starting point for determining whether right wing charges of MSM "bias" are really about bias, or really a quarrel with journalistic standards.
Along the way, you might mention some baseline point in the history of U.S. journalism when, in your view, American news consumers were not "told what these corporations want [them] to be told." Can you identify some "before" and "after" on a timeline?
(01-29-2021, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course this fits right into the alleged premise of the thread, as the utter failure of mainstream news outlets to actually report the news in anything close to an unbiased fashion has driven people to "alternative" sources, many of which are highly partisan or highly suspect. I completely agree with you about there being many excellent individual journalists, people who actually care about the profession, it's importance and its integrity. Unfortunately very few are willing to stand up and point out where their work is being manipulated and twisted to serve various agendas. As much as I frequently disagree with Glenn Greenwald the man has the courage of his convictions and has done exactly that, even with a company he helped found. Until more journalists find a similar courage we're going to be stuck with what we currently have.
The bolded does relate to the theme(s) of this thread. Right wing news commentators are indeed claiming that "the utter failure of mainstream news outlets to actually report the news in anything close to an unbiased fashion has driven people to 'alternative' sources, many of which are highly partisan or highly suspect."
That is why it is not their fault for becoming "highly partisan or highly suspect" in lending credibility to and disseminating Trump's lie that the election was stolen from him, feeding the Trump supporters what they wanted to hear, while the MSM would not do that.
I doubt that "courageous journalists" can fix the reporting problem as you see it. As hired labor they cannot do much to control news organizations they don't own, and as journalists they will be seen as part of MSM corporate news, won't they?
(01-29-2021, 04:16 PM)Dill Wrote: If you have always been saying "exactly" what Bels says, then why not start a separate thread on "monetization" of news and big business control of information?
Because I didn't want to. Why didn't you ask Bel the exact same question?
Quote:The claim "That [we] are told what these corporations want [us] to be told and only in the fashion they want it told" is a basic premise of conspiracy theories which abound now and led to the sack of the Capitol building.
Miss me with this bullshit attempt to connect my point to those people. If you have no desire to engage honestly then please don't bother at all.
Quote:Perhaps this issue is one way of relating what you have always "exactly" said to the topic of this thread. Start with the question of whether right wing viewers flock to Fox and OANN because they are tired of "corporate news" telling them what it wants them to know and only in the way it wants the news told, or because they want news that confirms their worldview. And giving them what they want has made Fox profitable.
Fox news, no. There is an obvious reason why conservative people would gravitate to Fox, because it's a friendly environment for them. More "alternative" news sources is more of what I am referring to.
Quote:How would a "good" and "courageous" journalist address this issue? I think by discussing actual examples rather than making sweeping, non-specific claims and declaring their truth not "debatable."
Maybe found their own news organization exactly like Glenn Greenwald did. There's a reason I used him as an example.
Quote:E.g., The New York Times wouldn't run a questionable story on Hunter Biden's laptop when it first came to light, but the New York Post did.That difference in editorial decision/standards might make a good, empirical starting point for determining whether right wing charges of MSM "bias" are really about bias, or really a quarrel with journalistic standards.
An odd comparison as many could credibly argue this is an example of the kind of bias we're discussing. The item was obviously news, it could absolutely be run as an item about what is being reported and what could actually be proven. It was clearly a news item, its veracity was what was in question.
Quote:Along the way, you might mention some baseline point in the history of U.S. journalism when, in your view, American news consumers were not "told what these corporations want [them] to be told." Can you identify some "before" and "after" on a timeline?
I don't know that there's an obvious "golden age" in this regard. Obviously, yellow journalism is not a new phenomena. I'd say the 70's-80's was probably the closest we've gotten to ideal hard news reporting.
Quote:The bolded does relate to the theme(s) of this thread. Right wing news commentators are indeed claiming that "the utter failure of mainstream news outlets to actually report the news in anything close to an unbiased fashion has driven people to 'alternative' sources, many of which are highly partisan or highly suspect."
Sure, they're claiming it. The problem is their claims are not without merit. Of course they will inflate or exaggerate, but we all know the best lies have a core of truth to them.
Quote:That is why it is not their fault for becoming "highly partisan or highly suspect" in lending credibility to and disseminating Trump's lie that the election was stolen from him, feeding the Trump supporters what they wanted to hear, while the MSM would not do that.
Except they did report on it, but they did so without confirming the allegations, something the NYT could have done with the Hunter Biden laptop story. I appreciate your reinforcing my point.
Quote:I doubt that "courageous journalists" can fix the reporting problem as you see it. As hired labor they cannot do much to control news organizations they don't own, and as journalists they will be seen as part of MSM corporate news, won't they?
If they work for an MSM outlet, to be sure. However, we have this wonderful invention called the internet that allows for the free flow of information with a very minimal cost. Somehow I think this invention could be used to achieve exactly the sort of autonomy we're discussing.
(01-29-2021, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An odd comparison as many could credibly argue this is an example of the kind of bias we're discussing. The item was obviously news, it could absolutely be run as an item about what is being reported and what could actually be proven. It was clearly a news item, its veracity was what was in question.
So let's use this as a launching point for this, because you are right in that this is a good example. You can actually search for AP News, Washington Post, and NY Times for that matter along with "Hunter Biden" and you will find that all of these outlets had stories about the laptop thing. All on the same day as the NY Post story.
This is where I have a hard time with these discussions, because oftentimes we see people going "why isn't the MSM saying anything!? Huh!?" when the reality is that it is in the MSM, it just isn't saying what these people want it to (or they aren't really looking and are just assuming). Now here is where we also get into what I was saying about gatekeeping, though. Stories may get run, but do they get the attention they deserve? Does a story get top billing on an agency's website when it really should? Sure, there is a reporter that did some excellent research and wrote this great piece, but how many clicks into the website does it take to find it? That's more often what we see with the gatekeeping of the better organizations out there.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(01-29-2021, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So let's use this as a launching point for this, because you are right in that this is a good example. You can actually search for AP News, Washington Post, and NY Times for that matter along with "Hunter Biden" and you will find that all of these outlets had stories about the laptop thing. All on the same day as the NY Post story.
This is where I have a hard time with these discussions, because oftentimes we see people going "why isn't the MSM saying anything!? Huh!?" when the reality is that it is in the MSM, it just isn't saying what these people want it to (or they aren't really looking and are just assuming). Now here is where we also get into what I was saying about gatekeeping, though. Stories may get run, but do they get the attention they deserve? Does a story get top billing on an agency's website when it really should? Sure, there is a reporter that did some excellent research and wrote this great piece, but how many clicks into the website does it take to find it? That's more often what we see with the gatekeeping of the better organizations out there.
Then why didn't you make a thread about it?
Kidding aside, you make an excellent point. There's an enormous difference between a page 1-3 story and one just before the back page. I'd also add that an important element of this is the language used. As an example, in a hard news article about a Trump rally ~2019, The Guardian referred to Trumps speech as, and I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the exact article, that, "The speech was the type that Trump's supporter's lap up." BTW the term lap up is not paraphrasing, I absolutely remember that verbatim. Now, anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a knowledge of the English language knows that the term "lap up" is highly negative in connotation and paints Trump supporters as mindless sheep ready to be spoon fed Trump's pablum. This also goes a long way towards coloring people's perception of the MSM and the way in conducts itself.
As an aside, I highly encourage people to pay close attention to this type of thing. Once you start paying attention for it it's literally everywhere..
(01-29-2021, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree with your basic premise entirely. Unfortunately you're falling into the Dill trap and stating it's only right leaning sources engaged in this. While they are far less subtle about it they are not even remotely alone in engaging in it. As long as you stick to your current line of thought the actual problem will never be addressed.
*siiiiigh*
I should put this as my sig so I don't have to repeat this every three or four weeks.
I watch all of the networks. I watch MSNBC the most because I watch Ari Melber and Brian Williams. If they were on Fox, I would watch Fox the most. If they were on CNN(aka the Clinton News Network), I would watch CNN and their Vagenda the most, simply because I don't watch any other individual host as much as those two. I don't prescribe to MSNBC's narrative even though they have a large selection of Pre-Trump Republicans that left the party when he became the nominee, and, in my evaluations, they all are biased to some extent. The closest that I've found to be near the center are PBS Newshour and BBC World News America even though both lean left. If you know of a network or show that is closer to center than those two, please share instead of just criticizing people's choices without supplying alternatives.
HOWEVER, if you are under the assumption that they are all equally distant from center then I'm of the belief that you are not looking at these with an open mind. MSNBC and CNN are not complaining about being censored for stating obvious BS that has been repeatedly proven to be BS. Fox, OAN and Newsmax are all publicly claiming to be news and claiming in court to be merely entertainment that shouldn't be taken seriously. I'm not just "Attacking the other side", I'm going off of information that they are providing all by themselves. As far as I know, MSNBC is the network or show that doesn't have the word News in the title, which was what I was complaining about in the first place.
(01-29-2021, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Vinyl: Businesses calling themselves News should be limited to stating facts, not theories lightly associated with facts.
If these companies that insist on mis-representing truth changed the name of their networks to Fox Opinions, or One America Politics or Ideologymax, nobody would give a shit about limiting their speech. Since they insist on lying to people that won't fact check them, other people are concerned with what the impact of their mis-representing of facts will have on the public. See 1-6-21 if you need tangible proof of these concerns.
This is the chilling thing. I can't overstate how chilling it is that many on the left are for curtailing Constitutional rights because of things like this.
I agree with your basic premise entirely. Unfortunately you're falling into the Dill trap and stating it's only right leaning sources engaged in this. While they are far less subtle about it they are not even remotely alone in engaging in it. As long as you stick to your current line of thought the actual problem will never be addressed.
Can you find where Dill states that "only right-leaning sources engaged in [misrepresenting truth]"? If you cannot, then you are misrepresenting "the truth."
My first post on this thread affirms that Right Wing Media sources pushed Trump's Big Lie, that Biden stole the election, while MSM sources responsibly and truthfully contested that lie. That doesn't mean none of them ever used "biased" language in an article title. It means they were invested in accurately covering the election while their RW counterparts were invested in the opposite. Since Jan. 6, the RWM sources in question have for the most part refused to admit to or retract the error, instead whipping up fears of "curtailing Constitutional rights" if legally held to higher standards of accuracy.
This is an empirical claim which covers many, not all RWM sources and excludes MSM sources. You refute it with a New York Times article backing Trump's voter fraud claims or an MSNBC segment claiming there was ballot stuffing in PA, or, conversely, a Hannity episode in which he questions GOP claims that computer software gave Biden thousands of Trump votes in Michigan. You don't refute it by turning it into a claim only one side is "biased" and then proving me wrong by finding biased language in a Guardian article.
Right wing news consumers do not turn to more biased and inaccurate news sources simply because they find some bias in some MSM sources. Claiming "both sides do it," as if the problem were really just "bias" and you can find some biased language in MSM articles too, will not address the problem of how, right now, political lies now feed domestic terrorism and give conspiracy theories the power to move masses and influence government--including via insurrection.
It's not possible to address THAT problem--the problem announced in the first post of this thread--without recognizing which news sources disseminated the lie and continue to sustain it by refusing to admit or retract the error, and which sources called it correctly all along and continue to call it correctly.
(01-29-2021, 02:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not defending the latter. But if Biden actually lost his mind and rambled about election fraud and hidden servers in the Ukraine and sick bastards and ugly dogs and all this nonsense, Rachel Maddow would at some point stop kissing his behind. Unlike FOX hosts, that just soldiered through Trump's daily conduct or his hour-long call-in sessions and kept calling him the greatest president ever. They parroted the stolen election narrative, and some other utter lies - and I do not see the MSM behaving akin to that.
Which is why I often catch myself giving them a pass. At least on an MSM station, I can in most instances rely on the actual facts being actually factual. Not that facts play a large part in their hour-long "now this liberal leaning host's take on the same three topics" shows, and oh let's have Mary Trump talking shit about her uncle every day for good measure. As I said, I do not really want to defend them, there's some horrific, selective, partisan propaganda going on on these stations too. But I get why so many have a bigger issue with the right-wing media. It's because they imho are demonstrably even worse.
The bolded is, finally, rather an important point. As is the MSM not "behaving akin to that."
It's not like RWM sources "parroted the stolen election narrative" and then everybody went quietly home to mull over his own opinion. No further consequence.
That narrative drove a mob of Trump fanatics to sack the Capitol building and millions of voters to send the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green and Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley Congress, where they will make governing via compromise very hard.
You'd probably agree--This is not like a difference of opinion as to whether raising the minimum wage will help or hurt the economy. As a lie, the stolen election narrative makes the country much harder to govern. Those who believe it will have trouble "trusting the government" when it comes to COVID policy many other issues. They'll continue to protest "hoaxes" and "witch hunts" of the sort needed for holding elected officials accountable. This is not a past problem--election over so move on. It is a problem going forward.
You might agree that this issue of truth and accuracy carries over to other somewhat less issues as well, such as addressing the problem climate change.
(01-29-2021, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So you are limiting speech. Telling people where they are free to do it is limiting it.
(01-29-2021, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is the chilling thing. I can't overstate how chilling it is that many on the left are for curtailing Constitutional rights because of things like this.
Interesting takes here from y’all.
A business owner removing an unruly customer who is inciting violence turns in to violating someone’s constitutional rights. An interesting mental gymnastics routine most definitely choreographed by right wing msm. Bravo
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
