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 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The age of Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You make some good arguments.
    Thanks, and you've put up a strong fight and made me work for it. I appreciate that. You don't post a lot but you're the most serious of the remaining debaters on ODN.

    However, the CNN business section isn't the front page. It isn't the home page for its website. Most readers would never even find that story. It stands to reason the business section is less ideological than the main news section. You found it. Great. I did a google search and that link never came up. Or, it came up low enough on the list that I didn't see it. So, CNN business covered it. CNN news did not.
    Business news is part of the news. They don't have a "news" tab on their website because basically, aside from the opinion stuff, it's all news. Yes, it's not a front-page headline, nor should it be. Its a conspicuous omission in another paper's opinion pages. Hardly the stuff of world-shaking news. It may be your expectation that is off and not their reporting. The paper has no mandate to make sure everyone reads this particular story.

    My google-fu skills are strong. I can find almost anything. - The one hard thing is when there is a huge story raging and I want to find something different on the same topic, then it's buried too deeply. This story actually came out as my #1 hit on my search criteria.

    The issue with the NYT is that the people who were outraged were Democrats, high ranking Dems. The paper kowtowed to the wishes of a political party in order that general readers would be fed the correct message. And by correct, I mean the message settled on by CNN and the Dem party.
    Who are their readership to a good degree. Again, this is about whether its propaganda or its reactionary for the sake of selling papers. If they responded to any outside force yelling at them, then it's not their own agenda driving the change.

    If you want to see propaganda in action, it's easy.
    Go to Occupy Democrats: https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/
    Go take a visit to Prager U: https://www.prageru.com/

    These are propaganda outfits. They exist to serve a political purpose and they only ever show you material designed to get you to agree with their agenda. I dislike both of them rather a lot.

    Can you find an instance where the NYT caved to Republicans to change a headline or story? Maybe you can, but I could not. So, in response to your question, I'd say yes. The NYT is out to change the reader's perception of Trump.
    No, but I could probably find a case where a conservative paper changed a headline due to republican outcry. You listen to your audience. That's the thing to understand about the media, its audience-driven. You get called out, sometimes you change things. That doesn't mean its propaganda, in fact, it argues the opposite.

    Let me add another example. I see this on Fox News and CNN all the time. It is kinda weird that the opinion hosts all drive the same stories for their respective channels and use the same words. Just watch CNN for a few hours and you'll notice each show basically repeats the same core stories. More importantly, they all seem to frame those stories using almost exactly the same words and phrases. Accident? Coincidence? Perhaps, more likely, they are being fed these talking points and sharing them with the viewers. Where do they get the talking points? Your guess is as good as mine, but it seems fairly obvious that they are intended to persuade the viewer towards a certain point of view.
    I don't have to guess. They get them from two places depending on what section they are in.

    News section: They come predominantly from Reuters reporters. Reuters does most of the actual reporting these days. Other news services subscribe to them and expand on their reporting.

    Opinion section: These come from whoever is most influential in the opinion sphere. Often political pundits and activists with big audiences drive those conversations. The exact people change, but if you look you can usually find out who said it first. Ideas are like viruses, they spread from person to person.

    This is why when MT started talking about this this propaganda narrative, I knew he'd gotten it from right-wing punditry. They've all been running that narrative recently. Many of the exact words and ideas I'd seen elsewhere.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #22
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The age of Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Incorrect: The person is unknown to us, but they are not unknown.
    That seems to be a very silly point.
    I wasn't saying they were completely unknown by anyone, how ridiculous.
    I was saying they are unknown TO US THE READER. As in because we don't know who it is, we are lacking information relevant to if we should take their claim serious.
    I mean.. what if it turns out the (now 2) whistle blowers are actually working for Biden? That would change our perception. But we can't "know" that unless we know who they are. Their motivations are relevant, and we can't know them if we don't know who they are. Especially because the ultimate problem is about trumps motives.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The whistleblower process is vetted. It requires someone to identify themselves to specific authorities and those authorities make a judgment if the whistleblower is in a position to know what they claim to know. They also evaluate the seriousness of the claim and its plausibility and look for any known inaccuracies or fabrications.
    That "vetting" process ended at the point of it NOT being sent to congress because it wasn't deemed a big enough concern. IE nothing to see here. It has been carried beyond that by politics and propaganda machine.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who had seven days to forward the complaint to Congress. But, contrary to “past practice,” Maguire did not forward the complaint to Congress, believing “the allegations do not meet the definition of an ‘urgent concern’ under the [whistleblower] statute,”
    Further, that end is rooted in the same point I have made over and over in other threads. Hear say and gossip are not sufficient "evidence".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    We know that this person is a member of the intelligence committee. We know that their complaint was vetted by other members of the intelligence committee. We know many of the claims are corroborated by independent sources.
    That doesn't mean anything, because it is too vague. WHAT claims specifically?
    No one cares that the claim trump spoke to a foreign leader occurred. That isn't relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No it is not presented as fact. This is where you are misunderstanding what a report in the media is. A report is when you say "There is a whistleblower report, this is what it says." It does not go on to say that everything in the whistleblower report is an established fact
    This is false, because just as you yourself just said "we know many of the claims are corroborated by independent source", that is how it is portrayed.
    That is the propaganda side of it, because it doesn't distinguished between WHAT claims, and how they are related.
    So it gives the impression of supporting something it actually doesn't.

    Because the central claim is about trumps motives, the coverage gives the impression that the important claim is supported, when it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    They may present other information that corroborates or supports the report, but they don't claim the truth or fiction of the report or its claims. If you can find a news report on the whistleblower claims that is presenting it as a verified fact, show me.
    I don't see the basis for this distinction. The news is not portrayed or forwarded as "well we don't know". It is forwarded as fact... that is why they are "reporting" it. The media is not a dictionary, in a monotone listing who said what. It draws attention to what one person says over another, and thus gives an impression of truth... and that is what they are trying to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    AKA: SUPPORT your CLAIM that it is claimed as fact in mainstream news media reports. My guess is you are misunderstanding the language of journalism and mistaking reporting for truth claims.
    The support is above, in the form of the reasoning that..
    1) "corroborated" language implies truth or factual nature of a source.
    2) The underlying assumption of those consuming media is that they are receiving "truthful" information. Which is "facts".
    3) The lack of disclaimers on every report that leaves that impression is a de-facto presentation as a matter of fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Hearsay: information received from other people which cannot be substantiated

    The whistleblower report can be substantiated. Its whole purpose is to report something so that it can be investigated. Congress has the power to subpoena records pertaining to the claims in the report and to find out if they are true and what other information there may be related to these matters. And indeed, much of it has been substantiated.
    Again vague as to be false.
    WHAT CLAIMS.. be specific, and how are they related to the core of the narrative being pushed.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The difference is a matter of specificity and interpretation. The first is specific, the second is a more general claim. Both could have been from the same phone call and phrased differently. Neither impacts the varsity of the claim, only the content of the claim.
    No, the difference is what you "know" is about a different subject.
    In the first instance you can know something about the call itself. Because it is quoting the call itself.
    The second is about the IMPRESSION of the original listener,and doesn't contain any information on the call itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The Report: "Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid."
    So this is the claim.
    "Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid"
    Now, unless what you quote flowing this spells this out specifically, then this is just the hearers understanding. It can't be said to be "substantiated".
    Because it speaks to MOTIVE.
    So.. does Trump declare his motive? Did you quote that below... let me see. (no you don't)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    This is based on a right-wing conspiracy theory that Crowdstrike invented the Russian hacking of the DNC and is owned by a Ukranian oligarch who still has the original DNC servers. He's interested because it would mean the Democrats colluded to influence the election in 2016
    You have inserted YOUR opinion.. .as FACT.
    Stuff like this undercut your attempt to portray yourself as teaching me something about reading news.

    The question is WHAT DOES HE SAY!!
    What are the words that actually come out of his mouth. Quote something. You are twisting so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It's pretty clear Trump wants to try and discredit Meuller and the report as much and in as many ways as he can.
    Even if true, that doesn't support the claim you are trying to support.
    Because the claim is about the 2020 election and his opponent. Meuller is not his opponent and as far as I know, biden didn't have anything to do with Meuller.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    This very good prosecutor is Shokin Whom the US and EU found to be constantly blocking prosecution of corruption cases. This is the guy that Biden bragged about getting fired. Trump wants to paint Biden as having done this for corrupt reasons because Biden is a leading potential opponent in 2020.
    This is also your inserted assumption. That is not what he actually says.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes, please investigate my leading opponent and his son for me. Thanks!
    So what. that doesn't substantiate the original claim.

    Instead, what is being done is projecting what the actions effect may be, and applying that as the primary motive of the president and then claiming that is "substantiated" by the call.
    When it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It is not really about motives. Things eiter are or are not in the Presidents interest for the Election in 2020. The whistleblower lists three...
    That is absolutely ludicrous, preposterous and factually wrong.
    Sought to pressure .....for the end of helping reelection bid
    That is about motive. If trumps motive was instead
    Seek to pressure for the end of getting to the bottom of a crime he has been made aware of.


    Then it is not shown to be true. It is completely about motivation, and is speculative not substantiated.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It is not a matter of motivation to say these things are in the President's political interest. They are all hotly talked about political topics related to Trump, his political opponent, and investigations against him. Not only that but he's having his personal lawyer, who is not a government employee, conduct conversations on these topics with the foreign leaders and diplomats.
    So what. that doesn't support the original claim.
    That trump sought to pressure in order to effect his 2020 election.

    That it DOES help him(and that is questionable and debatable as you said), doesn't establish that is his motive.
    Here is the kicker.. if it actually helps trump because Biden committed an actual crime... Then that does change the entire context of the reporting the media have taken.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    A whistleblower report is not probaganda, its not even news coverage.
    The first part isn't necessarily true.
    I mean, suppose the whistle-blower works for biden, and is just applying spin to a normal conversation?
    That would be propaganda at work.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Its when you think someone in your office is commiting a crime or unethical act and you want to report on it. It requires a judgement that the act being reported is criminal or unethical and that requires some sense of what people's intentions are. If there were no ill intentions, there would be no need to make a report blowing the whistle.
    I am going to call ******** on this one. You denied twice that it was about intentions..and now your saying that is key?
    Which is it? Pick a side.
    Now that you are on the side of intentions..how would the whistle blower know trumps intentions? How do they have access to that info so as to give them credibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That is entirely separate from journalistic reports about the whistleblower and what he said. In that instance, the journalists report what it is he claims without themselves claiming it is true or not true beyond what other information they can provide that corroborates or casts doubt on it.
    What's your point?
    The media giving attention to something that isn't actually a big deal is how propaganda works.

    "Trump speaks to so and so".
    .. umm.. lots of presidents speak to so and so. every president uses the bully pulpit to effect his re-election.
    Stating those things as if they are news and relevant is propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Are you saying that journalists don't commonly used un-named sources for their reporting? Seriously? Have you ever heard of deep-throat? There are articles about ethical guidelines surrounding these kinds of sources...
    https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp

    So unless you can show me that it is not a common practice, you can't say "Falsee
    No I am not saying that journalist don't commonly use un-named sources.
    I'm saying that it IS a problem even if the journalist is trustworthy, and EVEN if the source is conveying some facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That is not the medias fault. When they have someone report something, they report it was said. They don't say it is true, they say that an anonomous source provided the information to them. It is for you, the reader to decide if you think it is true or not. By reporting it was said, they are not reporting it is true.
    That is an oversimplification. News outlets are not simply "reporting" they are megaphoning this.
    That is why even true "reports' can still be propaganda.
    propaganda =/= false information. It means giving a false impression.

    [QUOTE=SIG] No, he should report that a source in the outroom claims that during the trial it was said that a famous victim was shot. [/QUOTE
    HAHAHAHA
    No, the question was not HOW they should say it.
    .. .also, would you mind showing an example of that being how it is ever worded?
    or do you think it would end up being
    "famous victim shot" (headline.. bold front page)
    small print 3/4 way through the story page 2. "A source close to the trial says the victim was shot".

    -Look, I get that it isn't a real world example. Clearly you don't see how this kind of stuff is EASILY distorted by the media, you also seem to be lacking in imagination as to how the media would actually present the information. Further you seem to be missing the ultimate point, that all of the reporters stuff can be true, and it would still only be HALF THE STORY. Which is what propaganda does and in so doing gives false impressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Sure, He could report that his source in the courtroom claims that in trial it was revealed that the defendant owned a gun like the one used to shoot the victim.
    Dude,that is not how this stuff goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The ethics for anonomous sources inlude evaluating bias and the effort to use the news media to manipulate public opinion for unethical purposes (such as trying to throw the results of a trial). The Journalist knows who their source is so they are responsible for evaluating that. In this case the reporter should not allow the source to have anonymity. They should either report who the source is, or not report on what is shared with them by the source.
    and.. that... doesn't happen.
    We watch it real time... all the time with congressional hearings.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Not much I think. It's a nice example of what can happen if Journalists don't do their job and allow a prosecutor to influence public opinion in this way, but it is not a good example for the kind of propaganda you say you are seeing in the news. Do you have a real-world example?
    Yes, like every closed door congressional hearings with "leaks".
    We watch the dems "leak" information that helps their side, and the liberal news reports it.
    then the Republicans "leak" information that helps their side to.. fox and they report it.
    All the while it is "anonymous" and all the while it is done in a way that you have above said is not right.

    This is how propaganda works. Dems leak stuff about an investigation that cast their opponent in a negative light.
    People get a sense of progress in a case that isn't in line with reality.
    Then the conclusion of the report finds nothing and the readers are left with an impression that something isn't right about the conclusion.. because.. "look at the bones!" (Monty python reference).

    I don't exactly catalog all this stuff to whip it out in a debate.
    but just look at how the media is treating a second whistle blower as "news".

    We already have the transcript. They have zero to add. Yet it is treated as significant revelation of facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I agree you are not in a bubble, but you do focus you time on right wing pundits rather than mainstream journalism.
    I'll be honest, i don't believe there is a such thing as "mainstream journalism".
    If I knew where to find it, I would consume it. Actually, I think the idea of "mainstream journalism" is a problematic term.
    You are either reporting the whole story, or you aren't. A journalist would wait to report a story, when they have the whole thing.

    Your conclusion was that I got the idea from one of those sources... and that is false.
    I mean, if you are going to say that me listening to rush regularly 10 years ago, is why I think that the media reporting today and in this instance is more propaganda.
    Then I am also justified in thinking that you are simply brainwashed by your own sources, which while you think them to be"main stream" are actually just propaganda mouth pieces.

    That isn't a helpful accusation to debate. lets just call each other stupid and move on to substance.

    also, if you think Shapiro is the same as Rush or Beck.. then you are sadly misinformed and are not qualified to judge as you are.
    Beck is a "sky is falling" kinda guy, listen to him long enough and you will be building a bomb shelter.
    Rush is a "motives of the left" kinda guy. If you want to know what the right thinks the left is thinking... listen to rush.
    Shapiro (who I am now caught up on his podcasts on this topic) is completely different in evaluation and presentation than either of them, and I would say closest to how I see things.
    not that he is unbiased... but you know it up front. If you haven't listen to his podcast.. I would recommend it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    For a guy who doesn't read much news or care about it you have a lot of strong opinions about why its no good.
    Because every time I encounter it.. it's so heavily biased and flawed it's destructing.
    Try not watching the news for a while.. come back cold Turkey and watch a bunch of different sources from both sides.
    or take a survey of how each president is treated by the media in general.

    I bet you could just look at how McCain was treated before he was a presidential candidate vs after.

    ---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    This is why when MT started talking about this this propaganda narrative, I knew he'd gotten it from right-wing punditry. They've all been running that narrative recently. Many of the exact words and ideas I'd seen elsewhere.
    Quote someone... specifically someone I listened too.
    I mean..if you want to say I got it from them.
    Also, I want to point out the poisoning the well fallacy you have going on here.

    ---------- Post added at 11:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------

    relevant link
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7iWP-4rYg4
    analytical dive into how the media interacts with people. Lots of graphs.
    To serve man.

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,445
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The age of Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Thanks, and you've put up a strong fight and made me work for it. I appreciate that. You don't post a lot but you're the most serious of the remaining debaters on ODN.
    Now that we are done washing each other's balls...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Business news is part of the news. They don't have a "news" tab on their website because basically, aside from the opinion stuff, it's all news. Yes, it's not a front-page headline, nor should it be. Its a conspicuous omission in another paper's opinion pages. Hardly the stuff of world-shaking news. It may be your expectation that is off and not their reporting. The paper has no mandate to make sure everyone reads this particular story.
    No. They have a business tab. Yes, business news is part of the news, but it is not usually on the home page. Whether it deserves to be on the home page is debatable. They certainly splashed the initial claims of the opinion piece on the homepage. The correction should receive equal billing. But, let's get to editorial decisions of CNN in a minute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Who are their readership to a good degree. Again, this is about whether its propaganda or its reactionary for the sake of selling papers. If they responded to any outside force yelling at them, then it's not their own agenda driving the change.
    If the outside source yelling is a political party, then it does speak to an agenda. Any 'news' outlet should be above the demands of a political party. Journalists are expected to be neutral observers, not mouthpieces for a party.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If you want to see propaganda in action, it's easy.
    Go to Occupy Democrats: https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/
    Go take a visit to Prager U: https://www.prageru.com/

    These are propaganda outfits. They exist to serve a political purpose and they only ever show you material designed to get you to agree with their agenda. I dislike both of them rather a lot.
    And so is CNN..
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/14...h-impeachment/
    “Jeff Zucker, basically the president of CNN has a personal vendetta against Trump,” said Nick Neville, a media coordinator at CNN. “It’s not gonna be positive for Trump. He hates him. He’s going to be negative.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, but I could probably find a case where a conservative paper changed a headline due to republican outcry. You listen to your audience. That's the thing to understand about the media, its audience-driven. You get called out, sometimes you change things. That doesn't mean its propaganda, in fact, it argues the opposite.
    I am not arguing that you couldn't. I am arguing that media outlets claiming to do serious journalism are spreading propaganda. All of them. Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are all guilty of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I don't have to guess. They get them from two places depending on what section they are in.

    News section: They come predominantly from Reuters reporters. Reuters does most of the actual reporting these days. Other news services subscribe to them and expand on their reporting.
    Not exactly. Media such as CNN have their own reporters, producers and editors. They are not just getting feeds from Reuters. I can click on the first several stories on CNN's homepage and see the reporters are CNN employees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Opinion section: These come from whoever is most influential in the opinion sphere. Often political pundits and activists with big audiences drive those conversations. The exact people change, but if you look you can usually find out who said it first. Ideas are like viruses, they spread from person to person.

    This is why when MT started talking about this this propaganda narrative, I knew he'd gotten it from right-wing punditry. They've all been running that narrative recently. Many of the exact words and ideas I'd seen elsewhere.
    Great. So, where am I getting my narrative. After all, I am accusing right and left wing media. Our media isn't offering journalism. They are picking and choosing stories to fit a narrative and that narrative is dictated by the ideology of whomever is running the media source. For CNN, they are fully invested in convincing the public that Trump needs to be impeached. For Fox, they are just the opposite, attempting to convince the public that Trump is perfectly innocent. The real story is so convoluted and isn't being told. Don't ask me what it is. I couldn't tell you. Did Trump do something wrong on his phone call to Ukraine? I guess. It seemed kinda unethical on some level. Impeachable? It does not feel like it rises to that level and the Dems have been trying to impeach him from his first day in office. So... objective news reporting would try to put all this into perspective and discuss more than he said/she said between Dems and Reps trying to spin their case. For instance, why is CNN calling the investigation from the House an impeachment inquiry? What is that? The House never took a vote. Impeachment isn't just something Pelosi can call out. It is a process. You hear this a little on Fox, but of course you would because it is positive spin for Trump. You don't hear this at all on CNN. It is all just silly and propaganda. The politicos and 'journalists' are all in bed together. The American people, partly to blame, are dumber because of it.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  4. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,473
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: The age of Propaganda

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Now that we are done washing each other's balls...
    I might not be finished yet, keep em out a while longer.

    No. They have a business tab. Yes, business news is part of the news, but it is not usually on the home page. Whether it deserves to be on the home page is debatable. They certainly splashed the initial claims of the opinion piece on the homepage. The correction should receive equal billing. But, let's get to editorial decisions of CNN in a minute.
    It's all about what people are interested in. What will incite interest? Sadly or not, journalistic mistakes don't really generate sustained outrage or interest. The business page is legit news. Not everything can be a headline.

    If the outside source yelling is a political party, then it does speak to an agenda. Any 'news' outlet should be above the demands of a political party. Journalists are expected to be neutral observers, not mouthpieces for a party.
    Well, if you think they are correct, then maybe you do listen to them. Or, if you think you will lose lots of readers, you listen. We might not like that, but it doesn't make them propaganda.

    And so is CNN..
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/14...h-impeachment/
    “Jeff Zucker, basically the president of CNN has a personal vendetta against Trump,” said Nick Neville, a media coordinator at CNN. “It’s not gonna be positive for Trump. He hates him. He’s going to be negative.”
    Again, this doesn't make them propaganda, it makes them bias. It's not a secret that CNN is not supportive of trump and that Fox news is. The national review (source of this article) is biased for conservatism. That doesn't make them propaganda. People can and will always have biases. You have a bias, I have a bias, we all have bias. No one is immune to bias. Nothing Zucker said is demanding anyone do anything. You can find pro trump opinions on CNN. You can find contrary ideas on CNN. You can find things critical of democrats on CNN. Its bias, but it's not propaganda. Nor is Fox news propaganda as they claim in the video.

    I am not arguing that you couldn't. I am arguing that media outlets claiming to do serious journalism are spreading propaganda. All of them. Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are all guilty of this.
    Let's make a distinction here: Spreading propaganda vs Are propaganda

    All news media spreads propaganda because they often report on what politicians and other propagandists are saying or arguing for. That doesn't mean they are themselves, propagandists. Yes, they are all guilty of sometimes sharing propaganda, but frankly, it would be nearly impossible not to. Anytime you quote the president, you are likely sharing propaganda with the public. You still cover the president though, it would be irresponsible not to.

    Not exactly. Media such as CNN have their own reporters, producers and editors. They are not just getting feeds from Reuters. I can click on the first several stories on CNN's homepage and see the reporters are CNN employees.
    Yes but they all read Reuters and are influenced by it pretty heavily. They also talk a lot with their peers and are influenced by them.

    Great. So, where am I getting my narrative. After all, I am accusing right and left wing media.
    Got your balls ready? You are much more a true independent than most I encounter. And you don't tend to parrot what other people are saying. You lean conservative/libertarian, but by and large, you are not someone who just coughs back up what they read somewhere without giving it your own take or ideas.

    Our media isn't offering journalism.
    There is lots of good journalism out there. There is plenty of bad journalism too. And there is no shortage of propaganda. But Trump and his ilk have misplaced their aim at what is propaganda. Most of the are incredibly engaged in exactly what while pointing at journalism, flawed though it may be, and often biased, and confusing that with actual propaganda which is what most right-only or left-only blogs and website are. Occupy democrats is left propaganda, CNN is left-leaning journalism.

    They are picking and choosing stories to fit a narrative and that narrative is dictated by the ideology of whoever is running the media source. For CNN, they are fully invested in convincing the public that Trump needs to be impeached. For Fox, they are just the opposite, attempting to convince the public that Trump is perfectly innocent.
    Not really, no. Both will have neutral articles and both will have contrary articles and opinions. They may lean one way or another but they are not making pointed arguments or pushing a specific agenda. And nearly all of the news articles are just stating what happened and reporting on what people are doing. Yes, they have a reporting bias, but that again is not propaganda. The WSJ has a reporting bias for capitalism but that doesn't make them propaganda.

    The real story is so convoluted and isn't being told. Don't ask me what it is. I couldn't tell you. Did Trump do something wrong on his phone call to Ukraine? I guess. It seemed kinda unethical on some level. Impeachable? It does not feel like it rises to that level and the Dems have been trying to impeach him from his first day in office.
    Yes it was unethical. Impeachable, that is for Congress to decide, there is no set standard for it beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors" which basically means abusing the public trust in a serious way, which itself is very broad. The dems have not been trying to impeach him from day one. They didn't start impeachment proceedings until just recently. They might have wanted to, but no one made any actual move to do so because frankly, there wasn't enough evidence to make a strong case.

    So... objective news reporting would try to put all this into perspective and discuss more than he said/she said between Dems and Reps trying to spin their case.
    No, you are wrong. An objective news report only says what he said and what she said and lets you sort out the spin for yourself. They put it into perspective by reporting other facts they can discover and present. But again, they don't tell you exactly what they mean or what conclusions you should come to.

    News analysis can do that, and opinion pieces can do whatever the heck they want, but opinion isn't reporting.

    For instance, why is CNN calling the investigation from the House an impeachment inquiry? What is that? The House never took a vote. Impeachment isn't just something Pelosi can call out. It is a process.
    Well, if you read reports on the question as I did, you would know. CNN is reporting its an impeachment inquiry because it is an impeachment inquiry. An impeachment inquiry is when congress holds inquiries into whether they should impeach the president and collects evidence pertaining to that. The house doesn't need to take a vote to do that, there is no rule or law requiring them to do that. It is something Pelosi can call out so long as other house members are willing to participate. It is a process and they are in that process now.

    You hear this a little on Fox, but of course you would because it is positive spin for Trump. You don't hear this at all on CNN. It is all just silly and propaganda. The politicos and 'journalists' are all in bed together. The American people, partly to blame, are dumber because of it.
    You do hear it on CNN if you bother to read. Here give it a try my man. Get your questions answered.
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/24/p...rnd/index.html
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 19th, 2018, 08:24 PM

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
  •