Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[BStowers023]

I agree with Greg. I just wanted to make it known that I'm not a Trump guy since his comment seemed to be directed at that. I think the media is a joke and I'm not even sure where to go anymore for my news to be honest. Every news source has an agenda and even if they are reporting "facts" they tend to put their twist on whatever they're reporting to go with their agenda. Fox used to be bad and still is but CNN went from a pretty reliable news source to complete garbage since the Election.

[greg1647545532]

You may have seen this but in my opinion it's a great starting point:

 

http://jerz.setonhill.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Otero-Chart.jpg

 

You'll notice CNN is down in "sensational clickbait" territory, and with good reason. It was never partisan because it wanted to be the channel in your dentist's waiting room, but it was never in depth and spent waaaaay too much airtime on the "if it bleeds it leads" concept.

 

I'd add to the bottom left politico, daily kos, salon, huff po, and any other garbage leftist rags. My primary news source is NPR, and I think anything in the middle there is pretty good. Long time Fox viewers will undoubtedly balk at that circle as comprising the "lamestream media" but that's, IMHO, the result of a decade-long disinformation campaign against their competitors.

 

The important thing, and this is true even of Fox News, is to separate the journalism from the garbage. Fox journalists are good, they have integrity, and they report the facts. Fox pundits are asshats. Fox TV has done a masterful job of blurring the line so rubes don't even know that they're being manipulated. FoxNews.com is fairly good as long as you avoid anything labeled OPINION or featuring a talking head.

 

MSNBC is garbage, they've copied the Fox TV playbook of crafting a narrative and blurring journalism with punditry. NYT runs a lot of editorials that liberals breathlessly share because the NYT is so trusted, but their investigative journalism is fair and top notch.

[Wease]

CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, and Huffington Post all need moved to the Left more. So does Occupy Democrats for that matter. They are the Breitbart of the Left. Fucking horrible...

[LJ]

CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, and Huffington Post all need moved to the Left more. So does Occupy Democrats for that matter. They are the Breitbart of the Left. Fucking horrible...

 

Washington Post and NYT staff reporting is top notch. It's the op ed's that are typically more left leaning.

 

Vox and Slate belong closer to MSNBC.

 

HuffPo is right where they should be. They have some quality reporting on some stuff, some really partisan crap on other stuff, and a bunch of hyper-left blogs.

[AngryBMW]

Where is FaceBook on the chart? That is where the majority of people get their news these days...

-Marc

[Geeto67]

CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, and Huffington Post all need moved to the Left more. So does Occupy Democrats for that matter. They are the Breitbart of the Left. Fucking horrible...

 

eh...no not really, unless you are confusing their Op-ed and pundit commentary for news. The NYT and Huffpo have pretty strong opinion sections that are often mistaken for actual reporting, Huff-po esp because of their main page layout which makes it hard to spot (I also feel like they could be toward the clickbait end of the spectrum too). If you are watching the situation room on CNN and think Wolf Blitzer is reporting news and not being an opinionated political pundit then I don't know what to tell you other than learn what the difference is between reporting and punditry (same goes for Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rachel Madow, et al.)

 

Brietbart could cheat over to the left more, not because they got better but more because the fringes of conservatism and the republican party got that much more crazy.

[o0n8]

Where is FaceBook on the chart? That is where the majority of people get their news these days...

-Marc

 

Is this a serious question? I hope not. Facebook doesn't have a news staff or write any articles, it's just a place to share.

[Geeto67]

Is this a serious question? I hope not. Facebook doesn't have a news staff or write any articles, it's just a place to share.

 

It's not a serious question.

 

However, since it is brought up - Facebook is shaing info for all the news sites on the spectrum, plus many "fake news" sites (e.g. the Denver Guardian) that exist just to generate ad revenue from traffic (if you guys want to learn more about that this is a pretty good NPR piece from the planet money podcast: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/12/02/504155809/episode-739-finding-the-fake-news-king).

 

Since content sharing is facilitated by users and algorithms clickbait and inflammatory headlines rule this space and places like the NYT and NPR get drowned out unless you purposefully go seek them out. What's worse is once you have clicked some of these "clickbait" sites or people send you some of them the marketing algorithms start to send you more and more of them and drown out the other sources. So the crap self perpetuates just because it's more attractive/inflammatory and not whether it has merit.

[Geeto67]

and since we are talking about fake news...this is also an interesting article:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/why-fake-news-targeted-trump-supporters/515433/

 

Well, not quite. According to a study slated to be published in the journal Psychological Science, it might be true that conservatives are more likely to fall for false, threatening-seeming information, but it’s not because they’re dumb. It’s because they’re hyper-attuned to hazards in their world. If they spot a sign of danger, they figure trusting it is better than ignoring it.

[Rustlestiltskin]

Trump won, libtards lost.

 

/thread

 

 

[Furloaf]

Where is FaceBook on the chart? That is where the majority of people get their news these days...

-Marc

 

At the very bottom, but simultaneously on both the extreme left and right corners

[LJ]

The White Houae barred media outlets The Hill, New York Times, BBC among others from a gaggle briefing today but allowed trash like Breitbart in.

[aussiek2000]

Obama administration did worse, when it came to media access and freedom of information. But people weren't worried about holding them accountable.

[KillJoy]

The White Houae barred media outlets The Hill, New York Times, BBC among others from a gaggle briefing today but allowed trash like Breitbart in.

 

This is only the beginning...

 

 

KillJoy

[aussiek2000]

[LJ]

Obama administration did worse, when it came to media access and freedom of information. But people weren't worried about holding them accountable.

 

No, they never did anything like this.

[Geeto67]

Obama administration did worse, when it came to media access and freedom of information. But people weren't worried about holding them accountable.

 

Prove it.

 

The Obama administration prosecuted sources and whistleblowers but rarely went after the media outlets directly. Even in its actions, they were still less than either Bush who preceded him.

 

Even in instances where he locked out the press corp, it was the whole press corp, not just a select few, and often from events that had some element of privacy (like fundraisers - donors have a right to privacy).

 

I'm not going to say Obama was a friend to the press, but many held him accountable for the whistleblower prosecutions. honestly nobody is going after the media outlets directly like trump has. The closest corollary is Richard Nixon, but even he didn't go this far and a lot of his tactics were used by Bush, Reagan, Clinton, etc...

[aussiek2000]

No, they never did anything like this.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/10/cpj-report-on-obama-press/2960607/

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article24759376.html

 

http://dailysignal.com/2010/07/12/live-from-the-gulf-obama-team-blocks-media-from-oil-spill/

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/associated-press-reveals-how-obama-blocks-news-information

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/02/cnn-the-feds-are-trying-to-block-media-coverage-of-how-bad-the-oil-spill-is/

 

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-blocks-wireservice-photographers

 

I can keep going

 

Prove it.

.

 

Not arguing with you. You'll never admit you are wrong about anything. You'll find something else to argue about. It's a waste of time and a frankly I don't give a shit.

[LJ]

Blocking all media is different than only allowing your shill media groups and blocking other media because you don't like them. It's part of his tactic to make people distrust the media and only trust him and media groups that work with him (Breitbart, America News Network or whatever.... Seriously.....)

[BStowers023]

We need a libertarian in office

[Geeto67]

 

I can keep going

 

you can keep going on demonstrating you don't understand the difference between a lack of transparency and selective propaganda and disinformation. How you can think limited restricted access to the press is "worse" than the current administrations selective aggression toward news sources that criticize his administration as a way to expand his authority and waive his credibility is beyond me. He's using some pretty old school totalitarian regime tactics, like joseph goebels level shit.

 

these articles also disprove your point that nobody held obama accountable for this, because that is what they are doing.

 

 

Not arguing with you. You'll never admit you are wrong about anything. You'll find something else to argue about. It's a waste of time and a frankly I don't give a shit.

 

that ship has sailed my friend, whether you like it or not you are arguing. Idiots worry about being right or wrong, intelligent people are more concerned with how supportable their position is and in the areas where there is room of interpretation is it consistent with their integrity and values. You should invest more time in developing your case and supporting your position because right now your argument that "Obama was worse" and wasn't held accountable is weak as wet toilet paper. but keep trying buddy, you'll get there.

[Geeesammy]

Thanks Geeto!

 

[LJ]

Trump is skipping the Correspondents Dinner

 

He will be the first president to skip the dinner since Ronald Reagan in 1981, who missed the dinner while recovering from an assassination attempt, but still delivered remarks over the phone.

[BigOxley]

Trump is skipping the Correspondents Dinner

 

 

 

LOL I love Trump more everyday

[LJ]

LOL I love Trump more everyday

 

Explain