Dr Gloom 21924 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I have no idea which newspapers you're talking about, Rayvin, but you're analysis of "they" is about as far removed from reality as you can get - at least as far as my personal experience goes. News reporting at my place is balanced and impartial otherwise it isn't published - full stop. The editorial and oped pages are another matter but you already know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 Yo be fair to the "MSM", at least 60% of Americans are morons He's now said Obama is behind the leaks and protests. Certifiable or very clever at pandering to morons. Or both. Unfortunately while the level of discourse in the US (and here) is exasperating we're going to have to find better ways of entering dialogue with the deplorable majority than calling them all morons. Maybe changing the system that's led to their economic woes would convince them, rather than telling them they aren't suffering at all and they're just idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35093 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Great film but you need to realise it's not a documentary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Really? Multiple examples of fake news made by quality media organisations? Go on, humour me. Hit me with the best example of the fakiest news they have disseminated. Sigh... I haven't used the term 'fake news' once. I've said 'lying by omission'. That said: I raised on here a few weeks ago that the media response to Trump's immigration controls was disproportionate. Many outlets in the media were portraying the countries selected as entirely arbitrary at best, or a form of corruption (countries where Trump does business were exempt) at worst. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-majority-countries-donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-entry-visa-three-main-countries-exempt-a7552526.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.39277420051f https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/30/saudi-arabia-egypt-excluded-from-trumps-ban https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/opinion/who-hasnt-trump-banned-people-from-places-where-hes-made-money.html So the last two of those are opinion pieces, but I don't actually understand why you think these shouldn't be considered (the first two aren't - they're reports which cover the issue factually but still manage to lie through omission). They are written by journalists who form part of the media, and are published for a reason - to flesh out the headline story with narrative and ideological detail. Maybe this is where the media is missing something actually - Gloom, do you believe that the general public sees opinion pieces as entirely benign and not an attempt to mould public opinion? If so, and if this is a view shared by other people working in media, this is why so many people think you're pushing narratives and trying to control the discourse. After the initial shitstorm about this decision, and the Op Ed pieces had finished their circulation span, we then saw articles being rolled out explaining the actual truth behind the decision. 3 days later. Why is this acceptable? Surely holding this information back, and this was information that was known to the media because the 7 countries were selected very recently by Obama, to no outcry whatsoever, is lying by omission? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Really? Multiple examples of fake news made by quality media organisations? Go on, humour me. Hit me with the best example of the fakiest news they have disseminated. It started with a kiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 Go on, humour me. Hit me with the best example of the fakiest news they have disseminated. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/24/julian-assange-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-interview Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Great film but you need to realise it's not a documentary Shut up you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15531 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 MSM is an abbreviation, not an acronym, silly. FAKE NEWS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35093 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Shut up you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Sigh... I haven't used the term 'fake news' once. I've said 'lying by omission'. That said: I raised on here a few weeks ago that the media response to Trump's immigration controls was disproportionate. Many outlets in the media were portraying the countries selected as entirely arbitrary at best, or a form of corruption (countries where Trump does business were exempt) at worst. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-majority-countries-donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-entry-visa-three-main-countries-exempt-a7552526.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.39277420051f https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/30/saudi-arabia-egypt-excluded-from-trumps-ban https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/opinion/who-hasnt-trump-banned-people-from-places-where-hes-made-money.html So the last two of those are opinion pieces, but I don't actually understand why you think these shouldn't be considered (the first two aren't - they're reports which cover the issue factually but still manage to lie through omission). They are written by journalists who form part of the media, and are published for a reason - to flesh out the headline story with narrative and ideological detail. Maybe this is where the media is missing something actually - Gloom, do you believe that the general public sees opinion pieces as entirely benign and not an attempt to mould public opinion? If so, and if this is a view shared by other people working in media, this is why so many people think you're pushing narratives and trying to control the discourse. After the initial shitstorm about this decision, and the Op Ed pieces had finished their circulation span, we then saw articles being rolled out explaining the actual truth behind the decision. 3 days later. Why is this acceptable? Surely holding this information back, and this was information that was known to the media because the 7 countries were selected very recently by Obama, to no outcry whatsoever, is lying by omission? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ Honest, if that is really the best example you can come up with I don't have any particular concerns over the media personally. As usual, I think your directing your attentions in the wrong direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 Honest, if that is really the best example you can come up with I don't have any particular concerns over the media personally. As usual, I think your directing your attentions in the wrong direction. What you think isn't representative of what Americans think though. In the same way Infowars readers diminish valid criticism of Trump and elavate criticism of his opponents, you're diminshing legitimate concerns about balanced reporting because in your view the entire focus should be on critising Trump... exactly the tactic that entrenches Trump support. If neither side is willing to engage in any introspection whatsoever you end up in a feedback loop that only serves to divide the opposing sides further and worsen the political landscape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Sigh... I haven't used the term 'fake news' once. I've said 'lying by omission'. That said: I raised on here a few weeks ago that the media response to Trump's immigration controls was disproportionate. Many outlets in the media were portraying the countries selected as entirely arbitrary at best, or a form of corruption (countries where Trump does business were exempt) at worst. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-majority-countries-donald-trump-travel-ban-immigration-entry-visa-three-main-countries-exempt-a7552526.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/countries-where-trump-does-business-are-not-hit-by-new-travel-restrictions/2017/01/28/dd40535a-e56b-11e6-a453-19ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.39277420051f https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/30/saudi-arabia-egypt-excluded-from-trumps-ban https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/opinion/who-hasnt-trump-banned-people-from-places-where-hes-made-money.html So the last two of those are opinion pieces, but I don't actually understand why you think these shouldn't be considered (the first two aren't - they're reports which cover the issue factually but still manage to lie through omission). They are written by journalists who form part of the media, and are published for a reason - to flesh out the headline story with narrative and ideological detail. Maybe this is where the media is missing something actually - Gloom, do you believe that the general public sees opinion pieces as entirely benign and not an attempt to mould public opinion? If so, and if this is a view shared by other people working in media, this is why so many people think you're pushing narratives and trying to control the discourse. After the initial shitstorm about this decision, and the Op Ed pieces had finished their circulation span, we then saw articles being rolled out explaining the actual truth behind the decision. 3 days later. Why is this acceptable? Surely holding this information back, and this was information that was known to the media because the 7 countries were selected very recently by Obama, to no outcry whatsoever, is lying by omission? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ An opinion piece is exactly that - a columnist or contributing commentator's personal view. It's up to the public to interpret any argument made in these pages. I've already pointed this out to you before, I'm sure, but quality broadsheets publish opinion pieces from across the political spectrum. A newspaper editorial is another matter - this is the official editorial voice, and yes, by extension a tool designed to shape opinion. As far as your evidence about "they" acting collectively, you've managed to uncover one story from the slew of recent trump coverage to support your sketchy argument. Yes, trump has argued that it was based on Obama's list. But you fail to mention that the reason it sparked such widespread outrage and blanket media coverage was precisely because trump enacted the ban, causing chaos. Do you genuinely believe Obama wouldn't have received exactly the same treatment from the media if he'd been insane enough to do something similar? Obama did nothing like this. It was a review of the vetting procedures following the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees. It wasn't a ban. Edited February 28, 2017 by Dr Gloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) Edited February 28, 2017 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21627 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 What you think isn't representative of what Americans think though. In the same way Infowars readers diminish valid criticism of Trump and elavate criticism of his opponents, you're diminshing legitimate concerns about balanced reporting because in your view the entire focus should be on critising Trump... exactly the tactic that entrenches Trump support. If neither side is willing to engage in any introspection whatsoever you end up in a feedback loop that only serves to divide the opposing sides further and worsen the political landscape. No. I just didn't think there was much misrepresentation in the articles posted by Rayvin, yet that was supposed to be his best example of, for a better word, media corruption. Trump and now the White House are engaging in demonstrable falsehoods on a daily basis which are clearly harmful. They're even censoring the press. Yet liberals like you prefer to navel gaze and self flagellate rather than deal with the obvious elephant in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 No. I just didn't think there was much misrepresentation in the articles posted by Rayvin, yet that was supposed to be his best example of, for a better word, media corruption. Trump and now the White House are engaging in demonstrable falsehoods on a daily basis which are clearly harmful. They're even censoring the press. Yet liberals like you prefer to navel gaze and self flagellate rather than deal with the obvious elephant in the room. it's bizarre, truly bizarre. we've got this demagogue in the white house - a pathological liar, who has been shown to spout falsehood after falsehood - go to war with the media. and it's the free press who are holding him to account that are corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 No. I just didn't think there was much misrepresentation in the articles posted by Rayvin, yet that was supposed to be his best example of, for a better word, media corruption. Trump and now the White House are engaging in demonstrable falsehoods on a daily basis which are clearly harmful. They're even censoring the press. Yet liberals like you prefer to navel gaze and self flagellate rather than deal with the obvious elephant in the room. I've criticised Trump plenty. I don't know why you demand Trump critics wear blinkers, You're proving the point I'm making about having no self awareness of the ills of your own side and only wanting to focus on the other. I called the Trump killing of a young American girl disgusting and heinous but you took issue that I compared it to the the Obama killing of a young American boy. It's partisan nonsense and it's part of the reason less than 37% of the population and 51% or registered voters supported either Trump or Clinton. EDIT:I provided other examples to Rayvin of media pundits outright lying about important election issues in order to defend Clinton or demonise her critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km_IMHrvvus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21924 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 why are we still talking about clinton? it's done, she lost. get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 To me, a liberal focusing criticism solely on Trump is like a football manager who's 4 nil down at half time telling his team that the opposition are dirty bastards and they couldn't do any more. Maybe try complaining to the referee a bit more. It's astounding that 49% of voters don't have anyone worth voting for but focus is on criticising the one person that could convince the king makers to vote for him. Why are US liberals not focused on standing up an alternative that speaks to more disillusioned voters than Clinton? Why is it OK to focus criticism on labour and Corbyn for their ineffectual opposition but not the Democratic party and their cheerleaders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Honest, if that is really the best example you can come up with I don't have any particular concerns over the media personally. As usual, I think your directing your attentions in the wrong direction. I fucking told you it'd be a pointless exercise. I'm not trying to demonstrate media corruption. I'm just not. I've said multiple times what I'm trying to convey, and the evidence I provided firmly supports that. There was another example last week, although I don't have the same level of detail available on it. That British teacher who was denied entry to the US; this was set out by the media as having been a direct result of the ban. Ewerk was saying that this sort of thing happens all the time though. Now, I don't know for sure that it does and am just going off Ewerk - but it sounds about right to me and other people have said this too. IF that's true, then the media have again omitted a crucial detail in order to point the blame at Trump. Here is the Guardian's article on it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/british-muslim-teacher-denied-entry-to-us-on-school-trip I don't understand why you're ok with this happening. It's misrepresentation of reality, and more than anything else, it's fucking transparent. Which means they're discrediting themselves in a crucial moment in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 To me, a liberal focusing criticism solely on Trump is like a football manager who's 4 nil down at half time telling his team that the opposition are dirty bastards and they couldn't do any more. Maybe try complaining to the referee a bit more. It's astounding that 49% of voters don't have anyone worth voting for but focus is on criticising the one person that could convince the king makers to vote for him. Why are US liberals not focused on standing up an alternative that speaks to more disillusioned voters than Clinton? Why is it OK to focus criticism on labour and Corbyn for their ineffectual opposition but not the Democratic party and their cheerleaders? Honestly mate, it's because some people are wedded to the status quo. That's literally what it is. Clinton was acceptable in this guise, Corbyn is not. I would suggest that the people who are considered 'acceptable' are established by the media, but that just re-opens the same can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15531 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I'm not trying to demonstrate media corruption. I'm just not. I've said multiple times what I'm trying to convey, and the evidence I provided firmly supports that. There was another example last week, although I don't have the same level of detail available on it. That British teacher who was denied entry to the US; this was set out by the media as having been a direct result of the ban. Ewerk was saying that this sort of thing happens all the time though. Now, I don't know for sure that it does and am just going off Ewerk - but it sounds about right to me and other people have said this too. IF that's true, then the media have again omitted a crucial detail in order to point the blame at Trump. Here is the Guardian's article on it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/20/british-muslim-teacher-denied-entry-to-us-on-school-trip I don't think that article says what you think it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now