It’s amazing that every single media outlet outside of Fox and Breitfart are so biased.
you can read this book if you care enough
Which I have been a fan of for ages. I wish it would happen already. Unfortunately a lot of activists will try to stuff if because its not clean ENOUGH…doesnt matter that its a significant improvement.
1 Like
All kidding aside if a independant or centrist wanted to just watch tv news what channel would be best? I was thinking Al Jeezera tv or maybe bbc… I used to think Fox was right wing, msnbc was leftys, and cnn tried to stay in middle…now I have no idea
I wouldnt personally, I prefer to read mine, but i do like BBC because they are usually much less excitable and stick to facts (most of the time).
I still think its much better to get a variety of sources. And do still agree with fox/msnbc being on opposite ends
1 Like
Yes I actually try to take in 1hr of fox and 1hr of cnn…its a shame we cant just get facts with out all the rah rah bs… I cant tell for sure on fox who is the most tame… On CNN I think Don Lemon does a good job of trying to balance shit… fox by far has the hottest chicks tho
1 Like
no lie about that haha
Not sure if that’s going to be the case going forward with Ailes gone.
Don’t watch TV News?
Get your news from just AP or Reuters. Ideally just straight facts with no interpretation added in.
Though, in all reality, the very nature of news reporting is partisan/opinionated in some form or fashion. Sadly my go-to Reuters is biased too.
I went to CNN HQ when I visited my brother at Atlanta last year. We went on a tour where they showed some things.
What really grabbed my attention is that the news-worthy events are ultimately brought up to CNN’s attention through staff going through all the other various news that they read.
Ergo, the staff will ultimately determine what may be delivered to the higher ups for them to consider being included in the broadcast.
I’ve done similar before when I interned for a Congresswoman. First thing I’d go when I walk in the morning is spend an hour or so skimming the NYT/Washington Post/Fox/blah blah and finding news/op-eds that I thought the Congresswoman would be interested in.
I’d been advised by the Chief of Staff and other senior staff members on what the Congresswoman liked to see/what they thought should be prioritized, but it was still ultimately up to me.
I honestly just try to stick to a simple ideology- Try your damned best to trust nothing you read/hear.
Makes it easier to read news from most sources. I still cannot stand news channels though, so I avoid them like the plague. For some reason reading things that I may disagree with is much easier than hearing it.
1 Like
Bro check out Andrea Tantaros shes fine as fuck…got ass tits and legs 4 days… Shit… I’d spit on a gay baby muslim refugee for a piece of dat ass
Well…she is another to file a Sexual Harassment suite against FOX and Roger Ailes…
Cant say I blame him Id go full Clarence Thomas on her sweet exotic ass
Probably because hearing these things is accompanied by lots of loud flashy colors, noises, and screeching talking heads. I can’t even stand to hear things I AGREE with on news channels
1 Like
You don’t have an experience in public debating, do you? Well, for others that are reading this I will break down your behavior in this discussion, usually associated with 19th/early 20th century populist demagogues. This behavior has had an unexpected resurgence in the last decade or so - with the major proponent being Sean Hannity.
But in the original late 19th century template which you’ve followed to the t, the argument goes like this, illustrated on the Flat Earth example (commentary on the debating techniques in italics):
A (quasi reasonably): "Well, I’m a skeptic by nature and I haven’t seen any definitive example that the Earth is round, only peddling of an inflexible dogma by the special interests groups. But I do have an open mind (invitation to a debate)
B: (mountains of evidence showing the Earth is round)
A: Well, this only shows that the Earth is a disc. No one was disputing that! A disc is still flat. You haven’t produced any definite proof that the Earth is indeed round. I’m still waiting for a (impossible claim) definite proof in the form of a man who walked westwards and came back to his starting point. Planes, vehicles and ships don’t count because they’re easily manipulated (reframing the debate on your own narrow terms)
B: (more evidence the Earth is round)
A: You simply cannot answer my simple question - where’s the proof? No stupid talking points! A man, holding a compass in his hand, walking westwards, supposedly coming back to his starting point. It’s simple! No trains, no planes, no vehicles, no mumbo-jumbo. (this quasi technical minutae helps A frame the debate on his own impossible terms, convincing the public that B cannot provide the needed proof. These two steps are usually repeated until A believes he scored enough points with the audience, hopefully frustrating B)
A: (ridicule) Well, it seems that my very smart (fake compliment) opponent wants us to believe that the Earth is a sphere with a twenty mile radius (fake claim somewhat similar to B’s). I’m just a stupid, ignorant country boy who can barely read (fake humility to connect with the audience) and my opponent is a very smart scientist (another fake compliment), but I drove fifty miles to Tulsa yesterday… and I didn’t come back to my house! (cue roars of laughter from a 19th century town hall meeting). So you folks decide (empowerment of the audience) - who’ right - me, you and our very own eyes or this here Mr. Smarty Pants with his graphs and charts who’s so disconnected from us real folks he couldn’t tie his own shoelaces (takedown of the supposedly smarter people).
Although the last few paragraphs are somewhat archaic, one can easily see how they’ve been coopted by the Trump crowd and slightly modified for the internet era. But the rhetoric techniques are still hundreds (thousands) of years old, harking back to the Greek sophists and Cicero’s rival - the famous demagogue lawyer Honorious.
3 Likes
Either you give me way too much credit or I don’t give myself nearly enough.
I was just being a tool because you presumed that I have no idea what scientific method, mathematics, or predictive modeling is. The cherry on top was the thing about the circumference of the earth.
So here’s my post mortem:
L: I’m going to start off like we almost agree. I’ll even throw in an anecdote about skiing.
S: OK. Here comes eurodude to tell me whats really happening.
L: If he knew anything, he would look how smart I am.
S: Now I’m just going to tool him till he gives up in exasperation.
L: Just keeps going.
S: I’m heading out to dinner for the wifes birthday.
L. I figured it out! This is an argumentation strategy used by demagogues!
S: Man this coffee is good. I wish I had one of those Kristoff reserves like last week. Man, thaat thing made my head spinny.
Read this if you don’t read anything else today.
Man, I know that you have a technical background. From what you’ve written, there’s even a possibility that we were at the same place at the same time.
I’m saying that wittingly or unwittingly you’re replicating the template used by demagogues throughout the ages (see the Sean Hannity reference), which is not that unusual by itself as sadly it seems that it’s becoming an accepted form of political discourse throughout the world.
So I decided to formalize it in English for my own benefit as well.
Anyway… I understand it you’re saying “Ha, ha I win because I lead a rich and fulfilling life! The joke’s on you?”
It was Katie Walsh
Yep. Ames is exactly who I’ve had in mind lately with this leaking to the press. Who ever is doing it will have their stated motives cloaked in a flag, but their actions speak volumes to the contrary.
Read it. Can’t get behind comparing the current leakers to Aldrich Ames, a drunk and womanizer who turned traitor for the money, and whose actions resulted in the deaths of intelligence assets.
Ames may have said “I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security… And I’m going to act on that.” But coming from his mouth, it was pure rationalization for his self-serving actions.
2 Likes