Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    So, I am trying to watch the news and stay informed for this election cycle. Fox is generally my go to, but I try to check out CNN. I also try to check out how each outlet is covering a given issue. Like comparing web page fronts to see what is being focused in on by each organization. Really not super deep, but I only have so much time.

    What I see is sooo much bias. Over and above that there is nothing short of slander being perpetuated over the public airwaves. The very last thing that we see is real information being discussed. The major publications have become little better than tabloids. Sure you can find legit stories, and you can find some instance of policy discussion, but I have seen far to many segments where a guest was basically begging to talk about political issues, only to be shouted down with the latest tabloid news.
    Sure, tabloid stuff sells and it's what people want. But it's what people want more in the sense of Idocracy's "electorates".
    Sure, it's what plants crave, but it's killing them. Same with the media.

    To this I have a few options, the first is to turn it off and ignore it, which I generally do. However what can be done about the actual harm that the media is now doing to our country?
    I propose we roll back a few protections of the media.

    What's that you say? What communism is this you are calling for, you ask? Look, I get it the fairness Doctrine was generally bad and it drove viewers away, but the way I see it..that is actually preferable. Also the bar should be lowered to hold the news responsible for their slander and spin. A simple line like any time "you said" is used, what immediately follows must be a direct quote
    or it will be held in the eyes of the court as slander and lying.
    Draconian rules! You will shout.
    Yes, yes it is. The reason being is that we should start to regulate this evil business of "media" because it is like toxic waste. I say, lets start reading that first amendment to protect only quill and ink,(as the founders had that in mind), the printing press too is protected, but not these fully automatic weaponize versions able to destroy a persons reputation around the glob. No more corrections on the 16th page, from now on if a story is wrong, it must be reprinted in the same space with the corrections clearly marked. Surely there is some common sense speech reform that we can pass and institute to protect our nation and our people from these fully automatic death stars.

    Bottom line, the "news media" is dead. They are no longer filling their proper roll as informers of the people and a platform for open discussion. As such, there is no reason to offer them the protections they have long enjoyed.


    DISCUSS!!
    To serve man.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    What is happening to Trump is no worse than what they did to Bill Clinton back in the day so I think it's all fair - if we all agree that Bill shouldn't have done what he did as President, then surely it is valid to discuss and examine evidence for Trump doing the very thing he boasted about doing! I don't see the disconnect nor why you'd see the media being especially biased - it's perfectly valid news! There is no unfairness because the same scrutiny on Anthony Weiner's sexting was applied each time the pictures surfaced. I reject any claim of bias here.

    On the slander issue, the NY Times lawyers said it best when they wrote in response to Trump's threat of a lawsuit: "Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself."

    Besides, these stories are out there because the campaign is incompetent to deal with the issues at hand - they don't go away because his main campaign manager is a woman, who is also disgusted at who she now has to support. His other two main supporters are also women, both of whom are desperately trying to deflect - and even Trump himself did a lame pivot to Libya. And his own running mate has been quite silent on the issue too! So let's make sure that the blame for the explosion of this story should also rest at the door of a poorly run campaign for a terrible candidate.

    I see a lot of people on the right complaining about a valid examinations regarding the fitness of Trump whilst they were silent as they watched Fox News bash Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, atheists, the poor and the Leftward bias of media and how the Fairness Doctrine was crippling them. So I feel your position here is for political convenience than actual fact. I don't know which websites you are referring to here but outside of the Fox News bubble that you've trapped yourself into, you'll find that the apparent 'bias' is basically the rest of the world of news! You should read some international papers such as the BBC, or Al Jazeera or anything that isn't US-based. I think you're going to find it difficult to support the position of a specific US-media bias against Trump.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Welcome to Capitalism MT

    Look here, the media is a private for profit enterprise (most of the time). They get paid by their customers. Their customeers are two fold: advertisers and viewers. Viewers pay with their eyeballs and advertisers pay with money to get those eyeballs. The media content is tailored to your eyballs. What you will watch is what they will show.

    It's a majority rules game (or at lest the majority of the audience segment the media is targeting). That means any individual that doesn't fit the overall demo doesn't get much say, though chances are there is some niche for you. With journalism, the is a threshold. International coverage costs a **** ton of money which means you need a big audience which means you have to target large deomgraphics which means a kind of most common shared trait kind of approach.

    If you really want good news, the thing to do is pay for it yourself. Take some time to seek out souces of journalism you feel do a good job and then give them you money to keep doing that good work. I've been working on creating such a list for muself of sources that clearly do good investigative journalism and give you in depth information on a topic that does more than simply make a one sided argument for some viewpoint or another.

    The other approach is to use news aggragators to make you aware of the stories you might be intereste in, then use Google to find multiple information sources so you can put together a composite picture of what is happening for yourself.

    We can't rely on any one news program to simply provide for us. We all have to be savy enough to want to seek out the truth and know how to find it. I think my many years of doing research for debate in highschool and colledge helped me get the skills to handle the internet age of information. Its a sea of ******** but also a sea of facts out there, more good accessible information than ever before, and also a lot more lies and misinformation. I think in many ways the media has evolved in good ways. The fact checkers and individual bloggers and so forth. Lots of services and viewpoints we never had before.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  5. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    What is happening to Trump is no worse than what they did to Bill Clinton back in the day so I think it's all fair - if we all agree that Bill shouldn't have done what he did as President, then surely it is valid to discuss and examine evidence for Trump doing the very thing he boasted about doing! I don't see the disconnect nor why you'd see the media being especially biased - it's perfectly valid news! There is no unfairness because the same scrutiny on Anthony Weiner's sexting was applied each time the pictures surfaced. I reject any claim of bias here.
    Funny, you think this is "new" news. Further, you seem to think this is being covered evenly, as though the subject is being examined and it's merits explored. Other than repeating what someone said.. I have yet to see any investigative Journalistic work presented. What claim has been substantiated? (PS I demanded the same thing in the cosby case.)

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    On the slander issue, the NY Times lawyers said it best when they wrote in response to Trump's threat of a lawsuit: "Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself."
    How quaint, you seem to think it is o.k. for a news organization to mischaracterize a persons story in order to hurt the reputation of another, but if it doesn't work in your opinion.. then no foul? niice.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    Besides, these stories are out there because the campaign is incompetent to deal with the issues at hand - they don't go away because his main campaign manager is a woman, who is also disgusted at who she now has to support. His other two main supporters are also women, both of whom are desperately trying to deflect - and even Trump himself did a lame pivot to Libya. And his own running mate has been quite silent on the issue too! So let's make sure that the blame for the explosion of this story should also rest at the door of a poorly run campaign for a terrible candidate.
    "Go away", so if he was silent it would have went away? They would have printed the story once and that would have been it? or do you think that if he had the perfect response (whatever that could be to "do you still beat your wife" type questions).. You think the media would have printed it at the end of every story or along side of or equally with it?
    That's humorous.


    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    see a lot of people on the right complaining about a valid examinations regarding the fitness of Trump whilst they were silent as they watched Fox News bash Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, atheists, the poor and the Leftward bias of media and how the Fairness Doctrine was crippling them. So I feel your position here is for political convenience than actual fact. I don't know which websites you are referring to here but outside of the Fox News bubble that you've trapped yourself into, you'll find that the apparent 'bias' is basically the rest of the world of news! You should read some international papers such as the BBC, or Al Jazeera or anything that isn't US-based. I think you're going to find it difficult to support the position of a specific US-media bias against Trump.
    So sad. So tainted by your own bias, you have to project it on me. My complaint is directed at Fox as much as any other news organization.
    My "position" has long been that I am forced to listen to two very biased sides in order to try and figure out as best I can the truth or the whole picture.
    Also, you have construed this as some defense of trump himself.

    -------------------
    First sig.. thanks for all the kind words. I appreciate it.
    Also, your post contains so very good advice, and some things i have thought about but never taken action on and some I haven't thought about. Like making a list.
    I was just thinking about how people should simply start to boycott the media. Start treating them like a person fearful of arrest treats the cops. (Ie as hostile agents)
    at this moment, if the media were to come to my door, my answer would be the same as if it were some other hostile gov agency. I plead the 5th, I don't consent to anything. O you want to know about the murder I just witnessed? On the record quote me as "Kiss my ass". Off the record, just make it up as you go along as you always do.
    Which made me realize that I would have to really, really trust the Journalist in order to even speak to them. Which beggs.. who is trust worth?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Welcome to Capitalism MT
    Well I agree that we have gotten what capitalism has given us, but it's more like the same way capitalism gave us acid rain, and deforestation for a time, and it's increasingly looking like the same kind of Capitalism as the mob practices in.
    The point is that Capitalism shouldn't be used to destroy people without clear facts and truth. That there are certain legal protections offered to the media for a reason, and that reason is not being served. So my proposition, is that if we agree that the media is not doing it's social roll on publicly owned airwaves.. then we should remove some of the legal protections it has historically enjoyed.
    As I did some research the bar is very high for prosecuting the media, it is beyond a "reasonable person". Basically there is no second and third degree liable, there is only premeditated first degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If you really want good news, the thing to do is pay for it yourself. Take some time to seek out souces of journalism you feel do a good job and then give them you money to keep doing that good work. I've been working on creating such a list for muself of sources that clearly do good investigative journalism and give you in depth information on a topic that does more than simply make a one sided argument for some viewpoint or another.
    I agree, start a thread with your results.. I am very interested in your process, as I think this is something that we should all do going forward.
    To serve man.

  6. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Funny, you think this is "new" news. Further, you seem to think this is being covered evenly, as though the subject is being examined and it's merits explored. Other than repeating what someone said.. I have yet to see any investigative Journalistic work presented. What claim has been substantiated? (PS I demanded the same thing in the cosby case.)
    You're correct this isn't new news - I believe one of the women already came out months ago. What makes this actual news is that Trumps denials appear to have little truth - he bragged about doing those kinds of claims he'd previously denied. He appears to be lying about his so-called respect for women. As he denies he denigrates the very women he molested. This is revealing his real character. How he deals with these issues now is important in revealing his character and temperament for all to see.

    More to the point, the truth of the it is less important to his reactions. See how calmly Obama dealt with the birther issue? Compare that to Trump on this issue. Night and day.


    How quaint, you seem to think it is o.k. for a news organization to mischaracterize a persons story in order to hurt the reputation of another, but if it doesn't work in your opinion.. then no foul? niice.
    I don't see anything has been mischaracterized. Do you have a specific example?

    "Go away", so if he was silent it would have went away? They would have printed the story once and that would have been it? or do you think that if he had the perfect response (whatever that could be to "do you still beat your wife" type questions).. You think the media would have printed it at the end of every story or along side of or equally with it?
    That's humorous.
    It shouldn't have been a big issue to begin with. Bill Clinton had just as terrible a history with women but he appears to have dealt with it and became president. Trump and his campaign are just incompetent.


    So sad. So tainted by your own bias, you have to project it on me. My complaint is directed at Fox as much as any other news organization.
    My "position" has long been that I am forced to listen to two very biased sides in order to try and figure out as best I can the truth or the whole picture.
    Then you're not reading properly. There are many more than just "two sides" - a steady diet of Fox News will do that to you. There are just as many biases as there are organizations. To whittle it down to just two sides seems to be a little intellectually lazy IMHO. Fox is just one side of a multifaceted world, each with competing interests and positions. Even within the right wing sphere there are multiple positions to hold. Even in this election you can identify at least 4 or 5 "sides". So I don't understand your statements.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    More to the point, the truth of the it is less important to his reactions. See how calmly Obama dealt with the birther issue? Compare that to Trump on this issue. Night and day.
    I agree, the tabloids are hilarious.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    Then you're not reading properly. There are many more than just "two sides" - a steady diet of Fox News will do that to you. There are just as many biases as there are organizations. To whittle it down to just two sides seems to be a little intellectually lazy IMHO. Fox is just one side of a multifaceted world, each with competing interests and positions. Even within the right wing sphere there are multiple positions to hold. Even in this election you can identify at least 4 or 5 "sides". So I don't understand your statements.
    Liberal/ Conservative
    Pro-Con

    It is pretty easy to categorize it as two sides accurately. But lets test your theory.
    So, a report comes out on gun crime and gun legislation.
    What is the 3rd side? There is for it.. against it... and _______ Fill in the blank.
    Further, provide a news organization that is typical of that said blank.

    Now, my approach has been far from lazy. Take nuclear power, and the discussion as to if we should have it. I will look for the documentary for nuclear power and the one against it. Doing so was very enlightening on how the facts were handled, and the common facts that they spun different ways. Now you suppose there is a 3rd or even a 4th side to that, and that I'm intellectually lazy for just looking at the two. So.. please support, and I will more than likely change my approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    I don't see anything has been mischaracterized. Do you have a specific example?
    One of the women in the story complained that here interview was completely mischaracterized and that she was repeatedly promised that it wouldn't be an unfair hit piece.
    Take it or leave it I'm fine with you rejecting the premise. I just know that it occurs and it common, and that is where I am coming from.
    To serve man.

  8. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I agree, the tabloids are hilarious.
    So you agree with me then that this is more about a test of character than anything else?


    Liberal/ Conservative
    Pro-Con

    It is pretty easy to categorize it as two sides accurately. But lets test your theory.
    So, a report comes out on gun crime and gun legislation.
    What is the 3rd side? There is for it.. against it... and _______ Fill in the blank.
    Further, provide a news organization that is typical of that said blank.
    No, there shades of support - some support none at all, some see a little legislation is good - Trump said that people on the no-fly list should be prevented from getting guns (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/15/no...agrees-with-ob) and some see that guns should be banned. All these positions are out there. I don't know why you need to see the world as black and white - there are some very good positions to hold that aren't at either extreme. Like I said, years of being in the Fox News bubble is very harmful: you are no longer seeing that real politics is about compromise.


    Now, my approach has been far from lazy. Take nuclear power, and the discussion as to if we should have it. I will look for the documentary for nuclear power and the one against it. Doing so was very enlightening on how the facts were handled, and the common facts that they spun different ways. Now you suppose there is a 3rd or even a 4th side to that, and that I'm intellectually lazy for just looking at the two. So.. please support, and I will more than likely change my approach.
    I'm not saying you're being lazy but it does appear that you are seeing the world in black and white: total regulation or none at all, in isolation. Whatever positions you have on nuclear power there are more than two positions:
    - a total ban
    - research nuclear fission
    - research ways to improve safety and make nuclear energy safe even in a catastrophe
    - put nuclear plants in every town.

    I don't know what two sides you're seeing but there's such a range of positions to hold that I can't even reduce it down to two! What are your two positions that you're seeing?


    One of the women in the story complained that here interview was completely mischaracterized and that she was repeatedly promised that it wouldn't be an unfair hit piece.
    Take it or leave it I'm fine with you rejecting the premise. I just know that it occurs and it common, and that is where I am coming from.
    I'm seeing a lot of disinformation from the Trump camp about these accusers. One story claimed to have vindicated him but the guy turned out to be a serial liar (http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/oo...utes-his-story). I can't take any pro-Trump story without a reference - they're being debunked as fast as they appear! I don't disbelieve you but I don't think you have really supported the media is mischaracterizing anything: even if they take an especially negative spin on what the woman said, it's still true she said them.

    Trump himself is saying the entire media is against him: the whole world of media is against him!

  9. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    So you agree with me then that this is more about a test of character than anything else?
    Test of character? Not a legit one no. These are not real values of the media, the questions they are asking are not really important to them.
    Otherwise Mike Tyson wouldn't see the light of day (being a convicted rapist and all). The idea of the Media doing a "character test" is laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    No, there shades of support - some support none at all, some see a little legislation is good - Trump said that people on the no-fly list should be prevented from getting guns (http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/15/no...agrees-with-ob) and some see that guns should be banned. All these positions are out there. I don't know why you need to see the world as black and white - there are some very good positions to hold that aren't at either extreme. Like I said, years of being in the Fox News bubble is very harmful: you are no longer seeing that real politics is about compromise.
    First of all, dude I have only had cable for maybe a year. I went some 15 years without it.. and for good reason. so your really barking up the wrong tree about a "fox news bubble". For 10 years my news came exclusively from NPR as I drove to and from work. (car talk was mystifying to me, can guys really tell what's wrong with your car over the phone?.. it's a trick right, like psychics?)
    Second, there is still just the pro and con of if legislation will work. your thinking too broad of a picture while I'm thinking specifically. In the end laws you vote for or against them, and you have reasons (hopefully).

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    I'm not saying you're being lazy but it does appear that you are seeing the world in black and white: total regulation or none at all, in isolation. Whatever positions you have on nuclear power there are more than two positions:
    - a total ban
    - research nuclear fission
    - research ways to improve safety and make nuclear energy safe even in a catastrophe
    - put nuclear plants in every town.

    I don't know what two sides you're seeing but there's such a range of positions to hold that I can't even reduce it down to two! What are your two positions that you're seeing?
    The two presented were about the question of if using nuclear power to boil water was a good idea or not.
    One said it wasn't because the costs were too high. Health issues, dirty politics, nuclear waste issues and some other things.
    The other was basically how nuclear power to boil water was the greatest idea ever. Health issues, dirty politics, nuclear waste issue and some other things.

    All the other "perspectives" you spoke of were basically addressed, though in very different lenses.
    The biggest take away I got was how certain statistics were "manipulated" by one side or another.
    For example, the anti nuclear position sited the fact that hundreds of train cars worth of nuclear waste was created every year, and there is nothing we can do with it. (bla bla)
    The pro nuclear position was that there was very little waste produced by all the nuclear reactors of the entire U.S. since the process started being used. (bla.. bla).

    At first, it may see that the two claims were contradictory, but then I realized. The first was measuring in lbs, the second was measuring in volume. (well, at least that is my best understanding). I couldn't have seen that if I hadn't "heard the other side". But both definitely had a spin on the facts, and were thus biased.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    I'm seeing a lot of disinformation from the Trump camp about these accusers. One story claimed to have vindicated him but the guy turned out to be a serial liar (http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/oo...utes-his-story). I can't take any pro-Trump story without a reference - they're being debunked as fast as they appear! I don't disbelieve you but I don't think you have really supported the media is mischaracterizing anything: even if they take an especially negative spin on what the woman said, it's still true she said them.

    Trump himself is saying the entire media is against him: the whole world of media is against him!
    That's fine, you'll have to find it on your own if your really interested. I'm not hear to establish that the media is crooked, that is a given for the sake of this debate.
    You are perfectly free to reject it and to continue to place your full faith in the media. ... good luck.
    To serve man.

  10. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Test of character? Not a legit one no. These are not real values of the media, the questions they are asking are not really important to them.
    Otherwise Mike Tyson wouldn't see the light of day (being a convicted rapist and all). The idea of the Media doing a "character test" is laughable.
    It's not a "test" - it's a revelation as to how your party's president would behave under duress. All the media is doing is what they normally do: produce content to make money - they practically catapulted Trump into fame with millions of free exposure. It's a little late to complain about the media's involvement.


    First of all, dude I have only had cable for maybe a year. I went some 15 years without it.. and for good reason. so your really barking up the wrong tree about a "fox news bubble". For 10 years my news came exclusively from NPR as I drove to and from work. (car talk was mystifying to me, can guys really tell what's wrong with your car over the phone?.. it's a trick right, like psychics?)
    You're the one that originally brought up Fox News as "Fox is generally my go to, but I try to check out CNN." I don't have any scientific evidence as to how long it takes to enter the bubble, but if it's already your "go to" for a year then all you're doing is watching the news that corresponds to how you view the world. Also, getting news from a single source, even if it's NPR (which I have never listened to), is not really a great way to get a full understanding of all sides. My primary source for news is the Internet rather than TV or radio. It's much easier to compare different viewpoints side-by-side.

    Second, there is still just the pro and con of if legislation will work. your thinking too broad of a picture while I'm thinking specifically. In the end laws you vote for or against them, and you have reasons (hopefully).
    I find that short-term tunnel vision is good to scratch an itch but it does take a long term multi-faceted view to justify certain positions.


    The two presented were about the question of if using nuclear power to boil water was a good idea or not.
    One said it wasn't because the costs were too high. Health issues, dirty politics, nuclear waste issues and some other things.
    The other was basically how nuclear power to boil water was the greatest idea ever. Health issues, dirty politics, nuclear waste issue and some other things.

    All the other "perspectives" you spoke of were basically addressed, though in very different lenses.
    The biggest take away I got was how certain statistics were "manipulated" by one side or another.
    For example, the anti nuclear position sited the fact that hundreds of train cars worth of nuclear waste was created every year, and there is nothing we can do with it. (bla bla)
    The pro nuclear position was that there was very little waste produced by all the nuclear reactors of the entire U.S. since the process started being used. (bla.. bla).

    At first, it may see that the two claims were contradictory, but then I realized. The first was measuring in lbs, the second was measuring in volume. (well, at least that is my best understanding). I couldn't have seen that if I hadn't "heard the other side". But both definitely had a spin on the facts, and were thus biased.
    These are just extreme positions again - there are plenty of options in between. We don't need to go all nuclear or no nuclear - there are plenty of valid positions in between. My point is that looking at extreme positions is not particularly useful.

    That's fine, you'll have to find it on your own if your really interested. I'm not hear to establish that the media is crooked, that is a given for the sake of this debate.
    You are perfectly free to reject it and to continue to place your full faith in the media. ... good luck.
    Then I'll reject your position that media mischaracterized the Trump molestation stories as being unsupported.

    Just like we get the leadership we deserve, we also get the media we deserve. Look at how Trump came about - he didn't come from nowhere. He came from years of Fox News xenophobia and right wing talk radio and a glorification of supposedly rich people like Trump and people's desire to see the train wreck that is the Trump's presidency. He's a culmination of what the right has become - and the blame for that is not at the feet of media - they didn't create Trump. They enabled him and we willingly participated: who doesn't remember classic zingers such as "Low Energy Bush" and who didn't enjoy the defeat of Ted Cruz?

    Now the same media is destroying what they created but they are also doing so because there are facts there. I have to reject your arguments there is any real bias going on here and I find it surprising you appear to disbelieve the stories about Trump and shocked that you think he still has a decent reputation left!

  11. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    On some reflection on the topic, I just can't think of any policy that would effectively improve the news without seriously trampling on freedom of speech in general or that would really be at all effective in making the average viewer more well informed.

    It may be a lack of imagination on my part but I just can't think of anything that would actually be effective without some kind of absolute dictatorship of "news" by the state. We could have some kind of state run news source like the BBC, but that doesn't mean people will watch it.

    For my part I spend a bit of time each week on facebook pointing out stories and memes that are total ******** to people that post them (as politely as I can) while encouraging everyone to play journalist and check their sources before they share claims and stories. If we all acted responsible when it come to information it just woldn't be a problem. And this is one of those areas where I just don't feel its practical to try and "fix" people who just don't give a **** about the truth.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  13. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Watching Pelosi being given a hard time about Clinton. I don't see the garbage that the OP is referring to - I think OP should get a DVR and perhaps watch non-primetime news :-)


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  14. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    For my part I spend a bit of time each week on facebook pointing out stories and memes that are total ******** to people that post them (as politely as I can) while encouraging everyone to play journalist and check their sources before they share claims and stories. If we all acted responsible when it come to information it just woldn't be a problem. And this is one of those areas where I just don't feel its practical to try and "fix" people who just don't give a **** about the truth.
    Yea.. probably right. We are just surrounded by unthinking people and the media both gives them what they want.. and preys upon them.
    on top of that.. the truth is not always easy to find.
    ----------
    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    It's not a "test" - it's a revelation as to how your party's president would behave under duress. All the media is doing is what they normally do: produce content to make money - they practically catapulted Trump into fame with millions of free exposure. It's a little late to complain about the media's involvement.
    I have been complaining since Ben Carson was ignored out of the race.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    You're the one that originally brought up Fox News as "Fox is generally my go to, but I try to check out CNN."
    Yea, it just doesn't support what you are trying to insinuate. Maybe your own bubble doesn't allow you to be wrong?
    Whatever, bubble talk is here on dismissed.

    [QUOT=SAD] I find that short-term tunnel vision is good to scratch an itch but it does take a long term multi-faceted view to justify certain positions [/QUOTE]
    and the point would be?

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    These are just extreme positions again - there are plenty of options in between. We don't need to go all nuclear or no nuclear - there are plenty of valid positions in between. My point is that looking at extreme positions is not particularly useful.
    I see no application to an example which supports your point. Your offering a platitude and it doesn't appear to mean anything applicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    Just like we get the leadership we deserve, we also get the media we deserve. Look at how Trump came about - he didn't come from nowhere. He came from years of Fox News xenophobia and right wing talk radio and a glorification of supposedly rich people like Trump and people's desire to see the train wreck that is the Trump's presidency. He's a culmination of what the right has become - and the blame for that is not at the feet of media - they didn't create Trump. They enabled him and we willingly participated: who doesn't remember classic zingers such as "Low Energy Bush" and who didn't enjoy the defeat of Ted Cruz?
    What bubble are you in now? Fox is the one that created trump? Funny... just funny.
    As to who didn't enjoy the defeat of ted cruz.. well me for one, and a bunch of people in my circle. Sure I'm behind trump on building a wall and boarder security, but that is only because he was the strongest advocate of it (as opposed to open boarders of HRC). That is a real problem the right feels needs to be addressed, it sin't Fox manufactured.
    But way to think everyone who disagrees with you are motivated by fox news... Really "open minded" of you.
    To serve man.

  15. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have been complaining since Ben Carson was ignored out of the race.
    He had some support until he started talking too much. He lost me with the whole pyramid grain silos business. He might have well worn a tinfoil hat after that. THere is lots of media reports on Ben carson, and most of them are about the idiotic stuff he says whenever he wanders into areas where facts matter much.

    Then Mr. soft spoken seeming nice guy then comes out and endorces and campains for Trump. At that point I figure he's just in it for the attention. Any kind of actual moral principles he had seem to have been thrown out the window so he's both looney about what he bleieves and a complete sell out to the screaming tantrum tactics of the least civil candidate in the GOP field.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have been complaining since Ben Carson was ignored out of the race.
    Ben Carson wasn't ignored - we learned that he believes the pyramids were grain stores and almost stabbed someone to death.

    Yea, it just doesn't support what you are trying to insinuate. Maybe your own bubble doesn't allow you to be wrong?
    Whatever, bubble talk is here on dismissed.
    I don't have a bubble - I look at many sides. You're the one that claimed that Fox was your "go to" news source: it's been shown many times that the network run by another right wing person with questionable attitudes and behavior towards women is unique in its narrative. Even Glenn Beck realizes the damage he did in a recent vice interview.

    I see no application to an example which supports your point. Your offering a platitude and it doesn't appear to mean anything applicable.
    My point is that your boiling down of complex issues into what you call two sides is simplistic and inaccurate. If you look at the examples of how to handle nuclear power, I have given you actual decisions made by people far more informed than either of us. You took a naive black and white approach which may be good for politics but it's terrible for policy.

    What bubble are you in now? Fox is the one that created trump? Funny... just funny.
    Of course - Trump is the ultimate xenophobic, outsider, anti-establishment candidate the the tea baggers were whining about for years!

    As to who didn't enjoy the defeat of ted cruz.. well me for one, and a bunch of people in my circle. Sure I'm behind trump on building a wall and boarder security, but that is only because he was the strongest advocate of it (as opposed to open boarders of HRC). That is a real problem the right feels needs to be addressed, it sin't Fox manufactured.
    Fox is a reflection of the voters as is Trump. The xenophobia isn't just against Mexicans, it's also against Muslims and immigrants. And since you watch Fox so much, you do realize that Hannity is Trump's best buddy on that network, right?

    But way to think everyone who disagrees with you are motivated by fox news... Really "open minded" of you.
    That's not what I'm saying - you're the one that brought up Fox News. I know I disagree with nearly everything from Fox News and you're the one that said it was your go to channel. I don't disagree with you because you watch Fox News but I disagree with your assessments regarding media bias around Trump. You have supported nothing at all in that regard.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  17. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by sad
    Ben Carson wasn't ignored - we learned that he believes the pyramids were grain stores and almost stabbed someone to death.
    Ben Carson polled 2nd to trump and was ignored during the debates. That is what I mean. He had the least amount of time afforded to him to answer questions.
    It was a travesty. I'd say your apparent ignorance about him is evidence of my point.
    To be fair.. he wasn't the only one ignored, and that is why the media is crap at it's job of informing the public.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    My point is that your boiling down of complex issues into what you call two sides is simplistic and inaccurate. If you look at the examples of how to handle nuclear power, I have given you actual decisions made by people far more informed than either of us. You took a naive black and white approach which may be good for politics but it's terrible for policy.
    I don't see that you have made a valid distinction. Your also assuming that the things you did bring up were not covered or did not fall into iether the "for" or "against" category.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    Of course - Trump is the ultimate xenophobic, outsider, anti-establishment candidate the the tea baggers were whining about for years!
    Full disclosure, I personally called for a guy like trump by name during the Romney run. I abandoned that after I discovered Ben Carson.
    So, your right that the Right has called for someone like him, though your description is not accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    Fox is a reflection of the voters as is Trump. The xenophobia isn't just against Mexicans, it's also against Muslims and immigrants. And since you watch Fox so much, you do realize that Hannity is Trump's best buddy on that network, right?
    I don't watch Hannity, though I notice he has some of the better guests Brave souls. I generally catch anything with Gutfield, and anything with Dana Perino. Other than that, I will browse the Fox Web page and compare that to CNN's front page. See what the left and right are focusing in on. If they have a similar story, I'll prioritize to check it out. .. Apparently that is a Fox bubble though so.

    ------

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    He had some support until he started talking too much. He lost me with the whole pyramid grain silos business. He might have well worn a tinfoil hat after that. THere is lots of media reports on Ben carson, and most of them are about the idiotic stuff he says whenever he wanders into areas where facts matter much.
    I have not found that to be the case. Instead I have seen the media ignore him when he was running, and harass him about non issues when he is trying very hard to direct them to the real issue or the issue he stands for. They are more than willing to debate him rather than let him make his case. But that is my take, I understand yours. I do grant that he is an outsider and the opposite of a politician and he isn't always the best at handling the media, but then .. it's hard to grab a shark by the gills and wrestle it onto the shores of reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Then Mr. soft spoken seeming nice guy then comes out and endorces and campains for Trump. At that point I figure he's just in it for the attention. Any kind of actual moral principles he had seem to have been thrown out the window so he's both looney about what he bleieves and a complete sell out to the screaming tantrum tactics of the least civil candidate in the GOP field.
    Well, he was hardly basing his policy on the grain silos of Egypt.. right? That is media focusing in on minutia and idiocracy over real substance. As for any "moral high-ground" I find that claim laughable. He is endorsing trump because of policy issues.. basically the only reason I would vote for trump. He rejects (As I do) the medias fake obsession with morals. Especially in the face of an apparent media hit job in a vacuum of facts and any journalism.
    To serve man.

  18. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Ben Carson polled 2nd to trump and was ignored during the debates. That is what I mean. He had the least amount of time afforded to him to answer questions.
    It was a travesty. I'd say your apparent ignorance about him is evidence of my point.
    To be fair.. he wasn't the only one ignored, and that is why the media is crap at it's job of informing the public.
    Well, the entire series of debates were a bit of a clown show - there were about 17 candidates! How is anyone supposed to manage that? People were interrupting and taking pot shots and then there was the all dominating Trump. I would think that they each got their initial turn but in the rest of the debate but everyone had to fight for attention. I seriously doubt that during negotiations with the rest of the world that passively waiting for your turn is going to get anyway.


    I don't see that you have made a valid distinction. Your also assuming that the things you did bring up were not covered or did not fall into iether the "for" or "against" category.
    I'm talking about your nuclear power option where you presented the two extreme views. My position had multiple perspectives and solutions: your problem is seeing everything as a 'for' and 'against' - there are many more solutions possible if you don't see the world in black and white.

    Full disclosure, I personally called for a guy like trump by name during the Romney run. I abandoned that after I discovered Ben Carson.
    So, your right that the Right has called for someone like him, though your description is not accepted.
    Trump won on his immigration and anti-muslim stances that went far beyond normal politics. He also won because he was a political outsider - even as it is turning out outside of the GOP establishment. There is a straight line from his supporters' stated motivations, the right wing narrative for the last decade to the Trump's own campaign priorities. My description is completely accurate.

    I don't watch Hannity, though I notice he has some of the better guests Brave souls. I generally catch anything with Gutfield, and anything with Dana Perino. Other than that, I will browse the Fox Web page and compare that to CNN's front page. See what the left and right are focusing in on. If they have a similar story, I'll prioritize to check it out. .. Apparently that is a Fox bubble though so.
    We'll see what happens to Fox now that the accusations of sexual impropriety has booted Ailes out of the way. You should really ready some of the foreign press to get a full perspective though.

  19. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    Well, the entire series of debates were a bit of a clown show - there were about 17 candidates! How is anyone supposed to manage that? People were interrupting and taking pot shots and then there was the all dominating Trump. I would think that they each got their initial turn but in the rest of the debate but everyone had to fight for attention. I seriously doubt that during negotiations with the rest of the world that passively waiting for your turn is going to get anyway.
    It was a travesty of journalism. To think that the people got a proper vetting and understanding of the candidates from both the format and how it actually occurred .. is pretty hilarious.
    As I said, many others did not get a proper viewing. More debates would have been my choice, instead of a crowded high-school hallway where the smartest guy in the room is muscled out by the jocks looking to grab the mike and go "WOOOO.. JUST WIN BABY!!"

    Quote Originally Posted by sad
    I'm talking about your nuclear power option where you presented the two extreme views. My position had multiple perspectives and solutions: your problem is seeing everything as a 'for' and 'against' - there are many more solutions possible if you don't see the world in black and white.
    Not really, they all fell under the "for" category. Your acting like the idea of "Unregulated full on nuclear powered everything" vs "Reasonalbe regulation nuclear power" is distinct in that it doesn't fall under the "for nuclear" or "against nuclear" positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    We'll see what happens to Fox now that the accusations of sexual impropriety has booted Ailes out of the way. You should really ready some of the foreign press to get a full perspective though.
    Probably. Unfortunately I only understand one language and my use of that is pretty rocky as it is
    I do some work for a man from the middle east, who is a political outcast (IE he can't go back home because he will be killed). That was about the most interesting conversation politically I had in a while. So I agree with your point, but seriously i'm having enough with U.S. media.. much less world media run by actual propaganda agencies.
    To serve man.

  20. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It was a travesty of journalism. To think that the people got a proper vetting and understanding of the candidates from both the format and how it actually occurred .. is pretty hilarious.
    As I said, many others did not get a proper viewing. More debates would have been my choice, instead of a crowded high-school hallway where the smartest guy in the room is muscled out by the jocks looking to grab the mike and go "WOOOO.. JUST WIN BABY!!"
    How do you expect to be able to manage 17 candidates!? They already tried to give the lower polling ones their own debate so that everyone got some exposure. I think the entire thing was a total joke when I watched them - you're right only the loudest, rudest guys got to win: but that's a reflection of the firebrand politics of the GOP - anti establishment disrespect, gotchas and zingers.

    I don't think you can lay this at the feet of the media - this election is the culmination of a decade of divisive politics: hence the most divisive candidate won. All you're doing is blaming the messenger and ignoring the message. The same media also handled the Democratic debates with the usual dull substantive policy focused and respectful candidates. The only difference is the party. Your blame is entirely misplaced and unsupported - you're using one of the objectively worst candidates support your point: just watching him excuse Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0162c043b6063) was a disaster.

    Sorry, but I reject that the media is at fault for faulty candidates. They may have seized on Trump for his star-power and the train-wreck of a failure we all expected but Trump earned that fame and its what his supporters want. How can you lay any of this at the media's feet? They're giving the viewers and his supporters exactly the information they want! They're literally doing the job you are saying they aren't! Just because you happen to disagree with the candidate they ended up with, that's the voters' choice, that's not the media's fault.

    Not really, they all fell under the "for" category. Your acting like the idea of "Unregulated full on nuclear powered everything" vs "Reasonalbe regulation nuclear power" is distinct in that it doesn't fall under the "for nuclear" or "against nuclear" positions.
    Again, you are betraying your view of the world - that it's either zero or not. Reality has many positions between zero and 100 and you're treating 1-100 as a single choice opposing zero. You make no distinction between "for" and "for SOME". I don't think this is a reasonable way to look at things.

    Probably. Unfortunately I only understand one language and my use of that is pretty rocky as it is
    I do some work for a man from the middle east, who is a political outcast (IE he can't go back home because he will be killed). That was about the most interesting conversation politically I had in a while. So I agree with your point, but seriously i'm having enough with U.S. media.. much less world media run by actual propaganda agencies.
    As do I but there's a ton of different papers that are in English: the bbc, the intercept, the telegraph, the guardian, al jazeera, the south china morning post, rt, times of india. Or just go to news.google.com for a fairly good cross-section. They can't all be conspiratorial!

    On the other hand, when you follow the actual conspiratorial sites (Breitbart, zerohedge, Fox, CNSNews) you get into a weird mindset that the whole world is against you. The right-wing narrative is one of paranoia and distrust of the government or the establishment. And this is reflected in the candidate that is representing your party.

    The problem with a paranoid mindset is that you're going to be easily led by those who agree with your fears; even by people are really acting against your best interests: again, witness your candidate.

    You owe it to yourself to understand different perspectives. I would avoid right-wing media for a few months and view it again from a fresh perspective: you'll see!

  21. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,719
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    How do you expect to be able to manage 17 candidates!? They already tried to give the lower polling ones their own debate so that everyone got some exposure. I think the entire thing was a total joke when I watched them - you're right only the loudest, rudest guys got to win: but that's a reflection of the firebrand politics of the GOP - anti establishment disrespect, gotchas and zingers.

    I don't think you can lay this at the feet of the media - this election is the culmination of a decade of divisive politics: hence the most divisive candidate won. All you're doing is blaming the messenger and ignoring the message. The same media also handled the Democratic debates with the usual dull substantive policy focused and respectful candidates. The only difference is the party. Your blame is entirely misplaced and unsupported - you're using one of the objectively worst candidates support your point: just watching him excuse Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0162c043b6063) was a disaster.

    Sorry, but I reject that the media is at fault for faulty candidates. They may have seized on Trump for his star-power and the train-wreck of a failure we all expected but Trump earned that fame and its what his supporters want. How can you lay any of this at the media's feet? They're giving the viewers and his supporters exactly the information they want! They're literally doing the job you are saying they aren't! Just because you happen to disagree with the candidate they ended up with, that's the voters' choice, that's not the media's fault.
    Don't even know how to begin to unravel that yarn. I'll try to hit what appears to be most relevant.
    So suppose I am using the worst candidate... so what? It doesn't mean he and others were given not given sufficient time or public forum time.
    As to the format, of putting 39 people on stage at one time.. that is partly due to the media, and how it actually was moderated is 100% media. There is some blame for the republican party, but it's not like it went down exactly as it was planned, and it's not like the moderators didn't have a major hand in the shouting match circus that occurred.

    As to the idea that the democrats did such a better job. That is laughable as well. There was one predetermined candidate, hardly "The peoples choice". It was certainly efficient though.
    But my complaint is about the medias failure to examine the candidates and present that to the people especially in a fair manner.

    To the extent that what you say about the "GOP brand" is accurate.. well they get what they deserve. I mean people did choose the loudmouth trump over basically.. a bunch of other people.
    but the majority of the gop base is not represented, evidenced by the fact that trump had like 30% but he was not the second or even 3rd choice of the other 70%.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    Again, you are betraying your view of the world - that it's either zero or not. Reality has many positions between zero and 100 and you're treating 1-100 as a single choice opposing zero. You make no distinction between "for" and "for SOME". I don't think this is a reasonable way to look at things.
    I'm not hiding my world view.. so.. Yea i'm laying it out there.
    You can be for nuclear power, or against it. Sure that can be dependent on some factors.. but that is sort of the context of the debate.
    Like saying your for nuclear power, just not next door to a daycare. You still have to establish why you are for it to begin with before you can discuss where it should go.
    For example, I'm for it, but only in places where you don't mind a nuclear explosion.
    And that because I think the people who are against it all together (the zero people) have some points. Your accusation simply isn't true as much as you may like it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    They can't all be conspiratorial!
    What are you talking about? Did I bring up conspiratorial websites? Was my point highly conspiratorial? I said the media is failing at it's job, it's doing so because of economic and political reasons. Not the Illuminati or space aliens.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    On the other hand, when you follow the actual conspiratorial sites (Breitbart, zerohedge, Fox, CNSNews) you get into a weird mindset that the whole world is against you. The right-wing narrative is one of paranoia and distrust of the government or the establishment. And this is reflected in the candidate that is representing your party.
    O, sorry it was your bias talking. I thought you were making a serious point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    The problem with a paranoid mindset is that you're going to be easily led by those who agree with your fears; even by people are really acting against your best interests: again, witness your candidate.
    Well, if you weren't such a insult #1, Insult #2, Insult #3, Insult #4, insult #5, then you wouldn't hold the view you do now either.. now would you.
    Seriously dude, you don't know the first thing about me or even my exposure your opinion is .. well crap. Your speaking from ignorance and bias, and you are going to give advice? Child please.

    Quote Originally Posted by SAD
    You owe it to yourself to understand different perspectives. I would avoid right-wing media for a few months and view it again from a fresh perspective: you'll see!
    Dude.. 10+ years.. no cable. .. no fox, no NBC. Before that 4 more year stint no cable before there was internet, no talk radio (rush and the like).
    Your opinion is worthless and lacks any relevant context to my actual life. Perhaps if you wouldn't see everyone you disagree with as conspiratorial nuts, you may be able to hear the other side. Your apparently so blinded by your own bias and the media echo chamber that you actually believe yourself.

    Have you really convinced yourself that I can't watch fox news and see their bias? Maybe the 24/7 anti Hillary stuff wasn't supposed to be a tip off? I mean.. after all they are included in my rejection of the Media.. you did know that riiiiight? Probably not, because you continue to hold that I'm in their "bubble".
    You can have the last word, but I won't be reading it.
    To serve man.

  22. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    321
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : The constitutionally protected press.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Don't even know how to begin to unravel that yarn. I'll try to hit what appears to be most relevant.
    So suppose I am using the worst candidate... so what? It doesn't mean he and others were given not given sufficient time or public forum time.
    As to the format, of putting 39 people on stage at one time.. that is partly due to the media, and how it actually was moderated is 100% media. There is some blame for the republican party, but it's not like it went down exactly as it was planned, and it's not like the moderators didn't have a major hand in the shouting match circus that occurred.

    As to the idea that the democrats did such a better job. That is laughable as well. There was one predetermined candidate, hardly "The peoples choice". It was certainly efficient though.
    But my complaint is about the medias failure to examine the candidates and present that to the people especially in a fair manner.

    To the extent that what you say about the "GOP brand" is accurate.. well they get what they deserve. I mean people did choose the loudmouth trump over basically.. a bunch of other people.
    but the majority of the gop base is not represented, evidenced by the fact that trump had like 30% but he was not the second or even 3rd choice of the other 70%.
    Don't forget that there were 17 different campaigns to coordinate in order to pull this off. The debates weren't a committee deciding things in a vacuum, they created rules that ALL they all agreed to. Also, there were different media groups running these debates, including GOP friendly ones.

    My point is to say that this the media or debate organizers are not at fault here. You still didn't demonstrate that it was and you have offered no alternatives so I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

    And that because I think the people who are against it all together (the zero people) have some points. Your accusation simply isn't true as much as you may like it to be.
    I'm just commenting on the two positions you put forward. You didn't put forward several viewpoints or possibilities, which is what I ALWAYS do. When you hire people to do a job, you don't just choose between two choices, you try to get at least three quotes or even four.

    It just appears that you're seeing just two positions with no other alternatives.

    What are you talking about? Did I bring up conspiratorial websites? Was my point highly conspiratorial? I said the media is failing at it's job, it's doing so because of economic and political reasons. Not the Illuminati or space aliens.
    You were saying they were being unfair and mischaracterized Trump's sexual misconduct. You laid the quantity of coverage solely on the media and you blamed them for politics as they are now! Not quite tin foil hat territory but Trump is saying the entire system is rigged against him.

    Well, if you weren't such a insult #1, Insult #2, Insult #3, Insult #4, insult #5, then you wouldn't hold the view you do now either.. now would you.
    Seriously dude, you don't know the first thing about me or even my exposure your opinion is .. well crap. Your speaking from ignorance and bias, and you are going to give advice? Child please.
    How is it insulting to point out that your information sources are incomplete and that your view of the media is wrong and your focus on Fox News as your "go to" is a very narrow view of the world?

    I'm just disagreeing with you, how is that an insult? Are you literally offended that people disagree with how you see the world? On a debate site? Really?

    Dude.. 10+ years.. no cable. .. no fox, no NBC. Before that 4 more year stint no cable before there was internet, no talk radio (rush and the like).
    Your opinion is worthless and lacks any relevant context to my actual life. Perhaps if you wouldn't see everyone you disagree with as conspiratorial nuts, you may be able to hear the other side. Your apparently so blinded by your own bias and the media echo chamber that you actually believe yourself.

    Have you really convinced yourself that I can't watch fox news and see their bias? Maybe the 24/7 anti Hillary stuff wasn't supposed to be a tip off? I mean.. after all they are included in my rejection of the Media.. you did know that riiiiight? Probably not, because you continue to hold that I'm in their "bubble".
    You can have the last word, but I won't be reading it.
    Meh. I don't know why you're ranting so much, you said that the Fox News bubble was your go to, you agree that it is a bubble, and you see the world in black and white and think the media is conspiring against Ben Carson and making things up about Trump! These are your words!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •