Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2018 12:16 PM
277 online now:
14174dm, dwise1, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 271 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,431 Year: 15,254/29,783 Month: 1,198/1,502 Week: 196/492 Day: 16/23 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   MSNBC and Bernie Sanders coverage
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 31 of 38 (831744)
04-23-2018 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
04-20-2018 4:43 PM


Re: The Topsy Turvey World Of Modern News
PaulK writes:

quote:
Jones own lawyer said he was playing a character.

It's amazing what a lawsuit will do:

Alex Jones, Backtracking, Now Says Sandy Hook Shooting Did Happen

It's always hard to tell with dedicated charlatans just how much of their own hype they believe. They so easily change their attitudes when their necks are on the line, and yet they have to be truly committed to their bull in order to sustain it for so long. After all, even though Jones is now admitting that Sandy Hook actually happened, he's claiming that the parents are being "used" by the Democratic Party.

How much of that is him trying to save his business and how much of that his him trying to save face?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2018 4:43 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 38 (831745)
04-23-2018 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Phat
04-21-2018 2:19 PM


Re: The Topsy Turvey World Of Modern News
Phat writes:

quote:
It did appeal to me, playing on my fears of losing my God-given spot in society...which is why I started this rant.

And what about the rest of us, Phat? What about those of us who think they also have a "god-given spot in society"? What about those of us who don't think there is a god? Do they not get a spot in society?

This goes back to my post which you didn't respond to: Are you not part of "the masses"? What makes you think that the opportunities being offered won't be allowed to you?

You ain't the lord of the manor, Phat. Do you really think that if Trump has his way that you will reap any benefit? For all your talk of "populism," do you think the people you helped put into power are concerned about you? That they think you are part of that "populace" that you claim they are championing? Do you honestly think that the Republicans in general and Trump in particular are out to help, as your definition put it, "the interest of ordinary people"?

Here's a simple example: The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. It is quite literally charged with protecting the interest of the ordinary people by acting on their behalf against corporations that would seek to swindle them. In the first half of 2017, it returned more than $14M to consumers.

But now, under Trump's (arguably illegal) appointment of Mulvaney to lead the CPFB, they are doing away with those protections. There is the 1975 Home Mortgage Data Act. In 2015, the CPFB updated what information it wanted to collect. But under Mulvaney, there will now be no fines for those financial institutions who have errors in their reporting data. And the data being asked for (called "HMDA Plus") is not anything new to these financial institutions: They use that information themselves regarding mortgages, they just never had to report them. The policy is also contracting the data being collected, so that the oversight function of the CPFB will not be as able to carry out its job.

It is this information and oversight that helps to prevent the mortgage crisis we had that led to the need for the CPFB in the first place. If you're concerned about predatory lending practices, discrimination in lending, or even just getting a handle on how the mortgage market is going so that you can make sure it is stable and robust, how can you support someone who seeks to blow it all up?

And that's just the beginning. Mulvaney wants to rescind the rules on payday lending, to put the CFPB's funding under appropriation control in Congress, to have Congress approve any rule changes, etc., etc.

None of that is for you, Phat. None of the policies being put forward are designed to help you. Take the tax bill just passed. Is $1.50 a week really much of a benefit? Especially when it's going to expire in a few years and in the process cost you more? While the corporate tax cuts are permanent?

I understand that you are worried for your future.

Do you understand that the people running the show right now do not care about your future?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 04-21-2018 2:19 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 38 (831746)
04-23-2018 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
04-22-2018 4:04 PM


Re: Meanwhile
Phat writes:

quote:
So much for the accusations of a liberal media.

Indeed. Conservatives like to whine all the time about how reporters, on the whole, tend to be Democrats, but they never seem to want to discuss the fact that the corporations that those reporters work for aren't nearly as liberal.

Which leads into your next comment:

quote:
Perhaps there is a hint of a conspiracy in that the major networks only cover what Jones would say was a globalist agenda---Hillary having been a PC inner circle "liberal" in name only. They market the "products" and people whom they wish to advance. Or am I again being paranoid?

Yes.

Rather than conspiracy, just follow the money: Perhaps the major networks cover things that they think will make them money. The CEO of CBS, Leslie Moonves, directly said it with regard to the 2016 election: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS." They aren't in it to score political points as their primary concern.

They're in it for the money and if they don't think you and your issues will sell, then they don't care. Sanders wasn't covered because they didn't think he was going to be the candidate. They're interested in the horse race because the horse race sells ads. That's why Trump sucked up all the air in the room both for the Republicans and for the race in general: His actions got people to watch.

But more to speak to Jones: If there is no "liberal media," then if that said media finds him to be a laughing stock, what could possibly be their motivation?

And by the way: You do know that "globalist" is nothing but an alt-right euphemism for "Jewish," yes?

Are you really willing to go down the road of anti-Semitism, Phat?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 04-22-2018 4:04 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19570
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 34 of 38 (831883)
04-26-2018 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
04-22-2018 4:04 PM


Re: Meanwhile, no liberal media
So much for the accusations of a liberal media. ...

There never has been a liberal media, all media is owned by corporations. Some may choose to present more liberal stories than others, but the ruling paradigm is the bottom dollar -- can the station make money doing it.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 04-22-2018 4:04 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 04-26-2018 4:01 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11308
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 35 of 38 (831890)
04-26-2018 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
04-26-2018 11:37 AM


Re: Meanwhile, no liberal media
I've heard that "conspiracy theory" before. Is it really true? Do oligarchs control global media? Is there no way to actually hear the truth in raw form anymore?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2018 11:37 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 04-26-2018 6:02 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 37 by jar, posted 04-26-2018 6:02 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 36 of 38 (831896)
04-26-2018 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
04-26-2018 4:01 PM


Re: Meanwhile, no liberal media
Phat responds to RAZD:

quote:
I've heard that "conspiracy theory" before. Is it really true? Do oligarchs control global media?

It's not a "conspiracy theory." It's simple reality: Major media in this country is owned by a handful of companies. For the US, it's 6 companies:

GE owns Comcast, NBC, Universal, Focus Pictures, Dreamworks, Fandango, Illumination, Hulu (with Time Warner), Grammercy, Bravo, Chiller, E, Esquire, Sprout, USA, Telemundo, The Weather Channel, SyFy, MLB Network, TiVo, Flipboard, and DocuSign.

News-Corp owns Fox, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, myTV, Barrons, HarperCollins, Financial News, and Harlequin.

Disney owns ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax, Marvel, Lifetime, Lucasfilm, A&E, History Channel, Vice, Touchstone, and Hyperion.

Time Warner owns CNN, HBO, Time, Warner Bros., Cartoon Network, Hulu (with GE), Mad, TCM, the CW, TruTV, Cinemax, Castle Rock, and DC.

National Amusements owns CBS, Paramount, Viacom, MTV, Nickelodeon, BET, Comedy Central, Showtime, the Smithsonian Channel, Pocket Books, Simon and Schuster, TV Guide, c|net, and Gamespot.

Sony owns Crackle, Screen Gems, Imageworks, Game Show Network, Destination Films, TriStar, EMI, Legacy, Epic, Syco, Olympus, and have their own financial institutions Sony Bank, Sony Financial Holdings, and Sony Life.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding what they own. Those 6 companies own 90% of media. Looking only at TV, they own 70% with the other 30% split across more than 3,000 other companies. Despite the fact that the FCC forbids companies from owning more than 40 radio stations, Clear Channel owns 1200 with some cities having every single radio station owned by Clear Channel.

quote:
Is there no way to actually hear the truth in raw form anymore?

There is no such thing. There never has been such a thing. Surely you've heard of Spanish-American War, yes? How Hearst and Pulitzer literally ginned up a war in order to boost circulation? There has never been a shortage of opinionation in the media. If you may recall, when the Democrats sued the Nixon campaign over Watergate, the media generally dismissed it as desperate and frivolous. Brinkley spewed an editorial about it on national television.

But even assuming no ego in the newsroom, there are more stories than there is media to publicize them. The mere act of journalism requires making editorial choices about what to cover and in what depth. Do you honestly think that NBC is going to be as critical about GE as, say CNN would be? That CNN would be as critical about Warner as ABC would be? That ABC would be as critical of Disney as Fox would be? That Fox would be as critical of the Wall Street Journal as the New York Times would be?

With the fall of the Fairness Doctrine, television news has shifted from being a loss leader to a profit center. That is, television stations such as NBC knew the news was going to be a money loser, but they did it anyway because they had a mission regarding journalism. However, newsrooms these days are considered to be profit centers and if you can't turn a profit, you get canned. Thus, harder news has given way to puff pieces and sensationalism.

Despite all the claims about journalists being "liberal," the media actually skews conservative, which is not surprising given the corporate nature of the media. Conservatives get more air time and more solo air time than liberals. Again, during the healthcare debate back in 2010, not one single advocate of single-payer was ever given any airtime on any of the political talk shows.

There is no such thing as "truth in raw form" and there never can be. News is carried out by people and people aren't perfect. You need to pay attention to the sources you are listening to, compare them to others, and actually listen to what you are being told to see if it passes the smell test. It isn't enough to say that Fox is owned by known conservatives and yellow journalists. You have to pay attention to what they are doing. Did you see Trump's little rant on Fox and Friends today? Do you think it's appropriate for a media outlet to be so cozy with the President? When the media outlet makes mistakes (and they all do), how do they handle it? Does this outlet seem to always be at odds with most other media outlets? If so, how do they make their justification? Pay attention to the way the news cycle happens: Do the pundits at night make unsubstantiated claims (under the guise of "just asking questions") that the news people in the morning pick up as, "People are talking about," as if that somehow lends credence?

And just as importantly, compare the information you are reading against your own confirmation bias. If a source shows itself to be regularly unreliable, do you continue to turn to it because you often hear what you like from it?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 04-26-2018 4:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 37 of 38 (831897)
04-26-2018 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
04-26-2018 4:01 PM


Re: Meanwhile, no liberal media
quote:
Former Congressman Charles Brownson, Indianapolis Republican, used to say, “I never quarrel with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 04-26-2018 4:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 38 of 38 (831898)
04-26-2018 7:20 PM


What Liberal Media?
To that end, the Washington Post, that supposed "failing," "liberal" newspaper that Trump claims is a "lobbyist for Amazon" just hired Kevin Williamson.

Williamson was let go from the Atlantic over his comments that women who get abortions should be hanged. And despite what certain news sources may tell you, it was not over "a single tweet." He routinely called for the deaths of people who have and perform abortions, saying that lethal injection was "too antiseptic" and that they should be killed violently (such as by hanging), saying, "if the state is going to do violence, let’s make it violence. Let’s not pretend like we’re doing something else."

Now, while you would expect that National Review, where Williamson made those comments, would leap to his defense, it seems that Kevin Drum of Mother Jones (supposedly liberal) and Bret Stephens of the New York Times (again, supposedly liberal) came to his defense. Stephens said, "I jumped at your abortion comment, but for heaven’s sake, it was a tweet."

For crying out loud, even Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg tried to defend him, saying, "taking a person’s worst tweets, or assertions, in isolation is the best journalistic practice," and then going on to say he "would also prefer, all things being equal, to give people second chances and the opportunity to change. I’ve done this before in reference to extreme tweeting."*

But this wasn't an isolated incident. This wasn't an example of "worst assertions in isolation." Williams was confronted regarding this by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, asking if he were truly serious and he repeatedly said that he was, stating that the point was not merely to have these women die for having an abortion but to have them suffer.

Since then, Williamson has been whining about this, claiming that when New York magazine asked him some questions, he refused and instead countered that he give them an essay telling his side of the story. They refused. He is claiming that this is proof that there is a conspiracy against him, that people are lying about him, etc., etc. He makes this claim in the Weekly Standard.

Interestingly, his essay that he offered to New York (which he proudly trumpets as "free of charge") is not to be found in the Weekly Standard. Instead, he simply whines about how misunderstood he is. As GQ described it:

His is the same problem encountered by every conservative op-ed columnist who shrinks from public criticism of their work: while they can convincingly (and correctly) argue that they are entitled to hold their opinions, they are never able to show why they are also entitled to see those opinions printed in the publication of their choice.

What liberal media?

* So if the E-i-C didn't want him gone, why was he let go? Because enough people told Goldberg that Williamson was a liability. He was there for only two weeks.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018