# The state of American journalism



## Chary (Jan 12, 2018)

​

Regardless of your view of the current US President, I have to ask, _what is going on with this country's news/journalism?_ 





We're reaching some sort of journalistic critical mass of stupidity. Walter Cronkite is probably rolling over in his grave in shame. Let's be real, though--Fox News has always been slanted, and there's always been clickbait headlines since the dawn of newspapers. I'm not saying journalism used to be perfect, but there is a clear and definite decline in the quality of the industry. Newsrooms are disregarding stories that might actually matter to the American public, in favor of _debating if Trump said a swear word during a meeting._ "My source said he did!" "My source said he didn't!!", and apparently this oh so important piece of news is dominating every other article and headline for the week. If you thought Trump was racist to begin with, and did indeed say it, or if you think Trump isn't racist and didn't say it, your opinion won't be swayed. Because all these stories boil down to "he said she said" hearsay, and not actual facts. 

What's the number 2 story of the day? Oprah rumors of becoming president. Oh yes, you heard it right, the second biggest hit of the day is yet another celebrity potentially running for office. I didn't think 2016's election could be outclassed further in ridiculousity of candidates, but we're setting ourselves up for further madness. 

If you stop looking at American news sites like CNN/Fox/NY Times/WaPost/etc, and go on over to BBC, you see the same news story, reported on one singular article. They discuss the context of what Trump's words are, if true, the comments of the people involved, the reaction of other countries, and how news sites reacted to the story. It didn't have anything sensationalist, nor did it really boast a title that stood out compared to the other sites. It mostly relied on...surprise; just reporting the story as it happened. Their front page also has much more variety than the previously mentioned websites. I'm not someone who's read much BBC in the past, so perhaps this is just an outlier, but from just researching their content for the sake of this thread, it's leagues above everything else I've read so far, and actually, shockingly, feels like what journalism should be. Why aren't more sites like this?

This thread was just the ramblings off the top of my head, and really doesn't have a point, and I apologize if my words are disjointed--I just felt like discussing the absolute, blithering, pandering news outlets, and how there's been a huge flip on how Americans process their news. Are we more focused on news as a whole? Yeah, we can't go 2 minutes without hearing about Trump--but what of the quality? Just because we're paying attention to news more doesn't mean the actual news we consume is quality content. Also, I just wanted to find a reason to make a thread in this new section ;O;


----------



## Meteor7 (Jan 12, 2018)

I've tuned out mainline American news sources long ago for these very reasons. Their general incompetence and lack of both professional and personal integrity only serve to make me disappointed, not informed, even more so when realizing that the enablers are the general public themselves. When the focus is solely on accruing views and not contributing to meaningfully and accurately informing the general public, then this is how things will trend. Unfortunately, so long as that behavior is still what benefits them the most, nothing will change, and as far as I can tell, the only way to reverse that situation is to have the American public refuse to give patronage in response to that behaviour.


----------



## DaMan (Jan 12, 2018)

BBC is government funded so they don't have to run clickbait stories.  You'd probably find similar coverage on PBS/NPR.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 12, 2018)

It's becoming a "he said/she said" mess. It's borderline depressing to know that the media, who is supposed to be a voice OF the people is spiraling downward into a cesspool of bribes and biased agendas. Standard Red and Blue politics aside? Seeing so many stories taken out of context to wrongly fit the puzzle. The lack of consistency among various outlets is concerning at best. It's dividing the people even further. What to do.. oh, what to do...


----------



## Joe88 (Jan 12, 2018)

relevant


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 12, 2018)

Occasionally, me and my dad will turn on CNN to just watch them complain about Trump and generally mock their incompetence.  It's almost entertaining.  Almost.

It's not just CNN, though.  Fox News is, and always has been, horribly biased towards the right, and their "fair and balanced" mantra is nothing more than a joke at this point.  Sometimes, in the mornings, I'll pick up this free newspaper called The Metro (a local Boston organization), and they don't even try to be unbiased; they obviously hate Trump, and will sneak comments about Trump even into stuff that is not even about politics.  Literally, there was this one article about Larry David, and, when interviewing, they pressured him about Trump.  He responded by stating he prefers not to bring politics into his works.  Apparently, this mutated into "Trump is banned from his joke list" on the front page.  It's depressing. 

At this point, you have to go to several different sources and infer the truth out of their conflicting opinions just get a clearer picture of what's going on.  Sadly, not that many people have the time nor energy to spend on news, so we end up getting our news from totally biased sources, and thus become totally biased ourselves.  It certainly is a sad day for American journalism.  If I wanted an opinion piece, I'd go to the opinion section.


----------



## Viri (Jan 13, 2018)

The 2016 election kinda solidified how bias the MSM is. Also, Haiti kinda is a shit hole, but it's not really the citizens fault. They have a pretty shitty corrupt gov, and mother nature just loves to fuck them over. Also, they deforested the fuck out of Haiti, which is making it pretty damn hot there. 




Chary said:


> What's the number 2 story of the day? Oprah rumors of becoming president. Oh yes, you heard it right, the second biggest hit of the day is yet another celebrity potentially running for office. I didn't think 2016's election could be outclassed further in ridiculousity of candidates, but we're setting ourselves up for further madness.


It was pretty funny seeing NBC trip all over them self freaking out on Twitter, trying to not be bias, and deleting their Tweet. If Oprah does run, I hope NBC is barred from hosting the debates. Because they're obv bias.


----------



## Pluupy (Jan 13, 2018)

Stick to local news, not global or national news.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Pluupy said:


> Stick to local news, not global or national news.


Even local news can be biased, as is the case with many local News channels, who are often given instructions from their parent companies.


----------



## Pluupy (Jan 13, 2018)

B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N said:


> Even local news can be biased, as is the case with many local News channels, who are often given instructions from their parent companies.


My local news only reports on local affairs and hence stick to actual journalism.


----------



## gman666 (Jan 13, 2018)

Journalism has fallen since the early 70's... Journalistic integrity and non biased reporting are rejected in favor of sensationalized and highly advertised/monetized news stories. News outlets were meant to be a public service for citizenry, funded by the corporations, and lead by intellectual people. Now it's just another way to scare old people into buying shitty insurance and products they don't need. Many people would argue that at a time when America is faced with evil, reporters should take a stand and use the platform to push people in the right direction, but that is not the job of a journalist. A journalist should present information in its most purest factual form and allow the people to decide what is right and wrong. However, we must remember that the citizenry also has a duty to fulfill. People should always be critical in what they hear/see, but critical thinking based in factual evidence is what is most important. Fact - checking and proper citation and non biased thinking is basic shit people!!


----------



## Viri (Jan 13, 2018)

gman666 said:


> Journalism has fallen since the early 70's...


Gee, I wonder why...



Spoiler


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Trump is the biggest news since Nixon, it's not surprising that they mostly focus on him.  I wish they would vary it up more, sure, but it is important that people understand the damage he's doing both at home and on the world stage.  Say what you want about Obama, but the fact of the matter is that the US was still a world leader while he was in office.  Now the US is at the back of the short bus.  Journalism did not bring us to these new lows, they're only following the lows of Trump's daily life.  To some extent we get dragged down into the mud with his lows, but that's to be expected since he's president.


----------



## 330 (Jan 13, 2018)

I'm glad that there are still people admitting how biased American journalism can be. That's why I spent a considerable amount of time looking for the best neutral news outlets there are. It's like if Sony and Microsoft decided to stop making consoles because Nintendo is selling theirs so well and all the gaming "journalists" would crap on Nintendo 24/7. I just read the main stories on a paid website called Wall Street Journal. The mainstream journalists became such garbage that I'd rather pay to not hear about how Trump is literally Hitler for the umpteenth time.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> I'm glad that there are still people admitting how biased American journalism can be. That's why I spent a considerable amount of time looking for the best neutral news outlets there are. It's like if Sony and Microsoft decided to stop making consoles because Nintendo is selling theirs so well and all the gaming "journalists" would crap on Nintendo 24/7. I just read the main stories on a paid website called Wall Street Journal. The mainstream journalists became such garbage that I'd rather pay to not hear about how Trump is literally Hitler for the umpteenth time.


It has nothing to do with bias when Trump publicly calls other countries shitholes and causes the resignation of ambassadors.  The real problem is normalizing this type of behavior for the president, when any of the other 44 would've been impeached for it.  The media can be partly to blame for this normalization, but they are calling it like they see it, as racism, in this case.


----------



## 330 (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It has nothing to do with bias when Trump publicly calls other countries shitholes and causes the resignation of ambassadors.  The real problem is normalizing this type of behavior for the president, when any of the other 44 would've been impeached for it.


It's the journalists' fault for reporting unworthy news just to try change the public opinion of him with nothing. You can shout "wolf! Wolf" only a few times before no one will come when there's a real one.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> It's the journalists' fault for reporting unworthy news just to try change the public opinion of him with nothing. You can shout "wolf! Wolf" only a few times before no one will come when there's a real one.


Again, you're only calling it unworthy because you're used to this type of stupid bullshit coming from Trump's mouth.  It may not damage you personally, but it certainly damages the US' image.

Late edit: the OP seems to suggest that Trump perhaps didn't make those "shithole" remarks, but there have been several confirming statements made by various people since.  Even confirming Trump echoed the statements "several times."  FFS, a Democrat was in the room.  Maybe Trump forgot where he was?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/durbin-trump-shithole_us_5a58c7ffe4b02cebbfdb29c8


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

Sensationalism is a fucking terrible disease and it only goes to muddy debates and factual reporting. Say whatever you will about trump, but when grown adults are reporting like overemotional teenage girls in a school news paper instead of reserved adults like the BBC's reports on the topic, you're not dealing with journalists, you're dealing with children.

People are gonna waver this kind of criticism of the media with some stupid shit like "well it's trump so it's okay" or "s-sure they're acting stupid but who cares don't criticize that the media can say whatever they want" which is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope into "the media is never wrong and should always be trusted at face value."

People are desperate, and people are stupid. That's why the book Fire and Fury is even selling. Sensationalism has taken American society by the balls and it's turning a lot of people into morons.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

slightly off topic but seriously though, that mudd guy can give a really emotional speech. Dude should be an actor.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> People are desperate, and people are stupid. That's why the book Fire and Fury is even selling.


I actually agreed with you up to that point, Fire and Fury contains tamer claims than most sensationalist TV journalism, and it's based on face to face interviews.  You can try all day to cry "fake news" on that, it won't work.


----------



## 330 (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Again, you're only calling it unworthy because you're used to this type of stupid bullshit coming from Trump's mouth.  It may not damage you personally, but it certainly damages the US' image.


The only thing that's damaging the US image are liberals thinking that they're so hip by destroying public property, stalking people online, sending death threats and protesting violently over a president that half the population democratically voted for.

You got a problem with the president? Criticize the decisions he takes that you don't agree to. Go to authorized protests. Express your malcontent. Be open for discussion with people that voted for him.

What happens instead? People protest violently and illegally. Journalists criticize every single thing of the president. They protest, but aren't open to explain why. According to them, everything is fascist, yet all the things these people are doing are part of the fascist regime. No wonder why people won't listen to protests when the president actually does something bad. I've been vocal about his stance regarding global warming, but my voice was lost to all the garbage I listed above.

What liberals have done is making any protest towards Trump a joke. You can now protest all you want but people won't care because they are tired of listening to people complaining about every single thing he does. He won't get impeached. He won't step down. Hell, he won't even get murdered, as many people want him to be (seriously, what's wrong with people?). They are fighting the big boogeyman, the "fascists", using fascist tactics. I am not the slightest bit of surprised that people decide not to listen to those who talk about seriously getting PTSD from "Trump trauma".


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Again, you're only calling it unworthy because you're used to this type of stupid bullshit coming from Trump's mouth.  It may not damage you personally, but it certainly damages the US' image.
> 
> Late edit: the OP seems to suggest that Trump perhaps didn't make those "shithole" remarks, but there have been several confirming statements made by various people since.  Even confirming Trump echoed the statements "several times."  FFS, a Democrat was in the room.  Maybe Trump forgot where he was?
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/durbin-trump-shithole_us_5a58c7ffe4b02cebbfdb29c8



Mate, this is a thread about journalism. Not how much you hate Trump. Can you kill the noise for a bit, huh?

The validity of public journalism has been falling well before Trump entered office. If all you can do is bring up more anti-Trump shit, then I have to ask.. Why are you here?


----------



## HamBone41801 (Jan 13, 2018)

B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N said:


> Even local news can be biased, as is the case with many local News channels, who are often given instructions from their parent companies.


yup. at this point, most of our local "channel twelve news" (or whatever) stations are owned by Sinclair, and are forced to run some of their... interesting segments.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> The only thing that's damaging the US image are liberals thinking that they're so hip by destroying public property, stalking people online, sending death threats and protesting violently over a president that half the population democratically voted for.


That's one (obviously biased) side to the story, but every story has several perspectives, doesn't it?  A lot of people see stupidity, racism, and infringing on various states' rights (weed, net neutrality, sanctuary cities) as a bad qualities in a president.  Crazy, I know.



Memoir said:


> Mate, this is a thread about journalism. Not how much you hate Trump. Can you kill the noise for a bit, huh?
> 
> The validity of public journalism has been falling well before Trump entered office. If all you can do is bring up more anti-Trump shit, then I have to ask.. Why are you here?


Apparently I'm here to give a clearly-needed counter opinion to a few members' loud Trump circlejerk.


----------



## 330 (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's one (obviously biased) side to the story


I literally posted 11 links to articles that back up my claim and it's somehow "obviously biased". Ok.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Apparently I'm here to give a clearly-needed counter opinion to a few members' loud Trump circlejerk.


And we're done here. You aren't presenting any counter-argument, just telling me that I'm wrong despite my sources.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's one (obviously biased) side to the story, but every story has several perspectives, doesn't it?  A lot of people see stupidity, racism, and infringing on various states' rights (weed, net neutrality, sanctuary cities) as a bad qualities in a president.  Crazy, I know.
> 
> 
> Apparently I'm here to give a clearly-needed counter opinion to a few members' loud Trump circlejerk.



Sanctuary cities are a joke. As demonstrated by the ONE illegal who keeps getting deported, yet comes back and commits crime after crime. (Jose Ines Garcia Zarate in case you can't figure it out) When they protect criminals, it's a problem.

The weed debacle is being blown COMPLETELY out of proportion. Shocker.. You mean the Federal Government trying to control a giant issue is so bad? Really? How does that affect you? Do you smoke?

Net Neutrality isn't being destroyed or abolished. Just bits and pieces are being changed or removed. Maverick covered this pretty damn well.

I really wish you'd kill your sensitive bias and try to debate with sense and reason. It's not a "Trump circlejerk" like you so arrogantly claim. It's just hard to take you so seriously when it's almost always some "anti-Trump" crap from you. You're not a voice of reason. You're not above anyone else. You just have a seething hatred for someone over subjects you clearly DON'T UNDERSTAND.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> I literally posted 11 links to articles that back up my claim and it's somehow "obviously biased". Ok.


Your opinions on the matter and how "insignificant" the things media complains about are.  Not necessarily (some) of the articles themselves.  I'm not sure if your flag is accurate, but Trump is way outside the norms in everything he does as president.  He's tearing down the foundations of what allows government to function.  All that leads to is a corporate takeover, absolute capitalism.  Welcome to microtransactions in every facet of your life.

That second remark wasn't directed at you.



Memoir said:


> Snip


Big shocker, you just deny the real facts and statistics on the issues and go for some stupid ad hominem.


----------



## Viri (Jan 13, 2018)

The MSM aren't just bias when it comes to the President, they're also like to skew things when it comes to stuff like this.


What a peaceful girl.


----------



## 330 (Jan 13, 2018)

Viri said:


> The MSM aren't just bias when it comes to the President, they're also like to skew things when it comes to stuff like this.
> 
> What a peaceful girl.


Disgusting.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Viri said:


> The MSM aren't just bias when it comes to the President, they're also like to skew things when it comes to stuff like this.
> 
> 
> What a peaceful girl.



And I don't defend stuff like this.  However, a lot of what is reported on today's news cycle is also yesterday's headlines from reputable sources like Washington Post, WSJ, NYT, etc etc.  It's important to be able to discern which media outlets are worth trusting.

CNN barely has their shit together on their best day, and the 24-hour news cycle is a problem for pretty much all of those channels.  I wish 24-hour news never existed, along with reality TV.  Game shows can stay.


----------



## dimmidice (Jan 13, 2018)

>_if Trump said a swear word during a meeting._

Way to downplay it. It's not even about the swear, it's about the message behind the swear. It's pretty big news for the president of the US to insult other nations. Especially with the racist overtones. And it is now confirmed.


----------



## DarthDub (Jan 13, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> >_if Trump said a swear word during a meeting._
> 
> Way to downplay it. It's not even about the swear, it's about the message behind the swear. It's pretty big news for the president of the US to insult other nations. Especially with the racist overtones. And it is now confirmed.


But Haiti IS a shithole. Where's the lie though?


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Apparently I'm here to give a clearly-needed counter opinion to a few members' loud Trump circlejerk.


As far as I can tell, the only thing you contributed to this discussion was a few anti-Trump remarks (more than your journalism remarks) and proving literally nothing because you didn't link sources.

Now, am I saying you are wrong? No. But everything you said is pointless against a claim with sources.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Jan 13, 2018)

If you want a good aggregation of news, check out msn.com as dumb and old as it sounds, Microsoft has done a great job of aggregating news sources and posting their stories. I usually check out US for US news, World for Europe, and scmp.com for China and East Asia


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Just think, during next election he may promise to tackle "fake news" and enforce minimum journalistic standards like what other countries have or... actually, it seems a law against deceptive news practices is pratically nonexsistiant in countries outside of Canada or just only now being considered. huh.


----------



## Chary (Jan 13, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> >_if Trump said a swear word during a meeting._
> 
> Way to downplay it. It's not even about the swear, it's about the message behind the swear. It's pretty big news for the president of the US to insult other nations. Especially with the racist overtones. And it is now confirmed.


It still wasn't the point though. This isn't a Trump is bad or good debate. This isn't a debate over what he did was truth or lie. I'm not trying to defend or accuse here, I'm just pointing out that everyone wasn tripping over themselves to report on hearsay, hyperbole, and without much facts, ridiculous headlines, and why most modern media news outlets are failing us. The BBC article does exactly what it should. It mentions the outcry from other world leaders, it says who's claiming what, and why it's a bad thing if it's true. It doesn't assume, it doesn't speculate, it just gives the facts for the readers to piece together and come to their own conclusions, as opposed to the other 500 articles that almost force the reader how to feel from the outset.


----------



## Viri (Jan 13, 2018)

DarthDub said:


> But Haiti IS a shithole. Where's the lie though?


It is a shit hole, but you have people like this claiming otherwise. I would hope that Trump's comment(if he even made it in the first place), would bring attention towards how bad Haiti is, and perhaps have some people willing to help out. I have quite a few Haitian and Dominican friends, so this isn't exactly news to me. 
https://twitter.com/Jacquiecharles/status/951655804087783425


----------



## dimmidice (Jan 13, 2018)

Chary said:


> It still wasn't the point though. This isn't a Trump is bad or good debate. This isn't a debate over what he did was truth or lie. I'm not trying to defend or accuse here, I'm just pointing out that everyone wasn tripping over themselves to report on hearsay, hyperbole, and without much facts, ridiculous headlines, and why most modern media news outlets are failing us. The BBC article does exactly what it should. It mentions the outcry from other world leaders, it says who's claiming what, and why it's a bad thing if it's true. It doesn't assume, it doesn't speculate, it just gives the facts for the readers to piece together and come to their own conclusions, as opposed to the other 500 articles that almost force the reader how to feel from the outset.


You say US media is god awful but you didn't actually link to anything relevant about it. That video is an opinion piece, not the same as the BBC article at all. The BBC is usually extremely good in it's reporting so i feel like using that as a comparison is a bit silly. There's shitty tv channels and news networks all around. Just look at the daily mail. But there's also good ones all around. Wapo for example is a very good US paper who does a lot of good journalism.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> As far as I can tell, the only thing you contributed to this discussion was a few anti-Trump remarks (more than your journalism remarks) and proving literally nothing because you didn't link sources.
> 
> Now, am I saying you are wrong? No. But everything you said is pointless against a claim with sources.


I shouldn't have to source everything, that's a pointless exercise in trying to appear superior to whomever I'm talking to.  People always prefer their own sources over someone else's these days anyway.



Chary said:


> It still wasn't the point though. This isn't a Trump is bad or good debate. This isn't a debate over what he did was truth or lie. I'm not trying to defend or accuse here, I'm just pointing out that everyone wasn tripping over themselves to report on hearsay, hyperbole, and without much facts, ridiculous headlines, and why most modern media news outlets are failing us. The BBC article does exactly what it should. It mentions the outcry from other world leaders, it says who's claiming what, and why it's a bad thing if it's true. It doesn't assume, it doesn't speculate, it just gives the facts for the readers to piece together and come to their own conclusions, as opposed to the other 500 articles that almost force the reader how to feel from the outset.


Yes, there's definitely something to be said for journalists who wait for the facts to be confirmed before speculating.  Unfortunately, that's becoming rarer as the "twitter generation" only wants their opinions reflected back to them.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I shouldn't have to source everything, that's a pointless exercise in trying to appear superior to whomever I'm talking to.  People always prefer their own sources over someone else's these days anyway.


It makes you look less reliable, and lets people see where you got your information from.

For example: If I don't source something where I claim that Trump is a great president, I look like I just pulled that out of nowhere trying to prove my opinion. That is the difference between an opinion and a claim. Notice I didn't mark any of your information as a "claim" because it is an opinion until you have factual information to prove it.



Xzi said:


> People always prefer their own sources over someone else's these days anyway.


This is just a lame excuse as is.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 13, 2018)

Mainstream news exists to sell advertising space.

Their motive is to keep you watching while the viagra ads roll, not to educate you. That's not to say it's all lies. It's often not, but what they focus on is designed to keep you watching. Fear, conflict, nationalism, and controversy all do this very well.
It's being even further dumbed down to compete with social media.

I don't know why you included that video though. That guest makes an interesting point that is well of the intellectual standard of CNN and Don Lemon. That click-bait headline was put on the by the youtuber who reuploaded it, not CNN.



Xzi said:


> I shouldn't have to source everything, that's a pointless exercise in trying to appear superior to whomever I'm talking to.  People always prefer their own sources over someone else's these days anyway.



A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 



Xzi said:


> It has nothing to do with bias when Trump publicly calls other countries shitholes and causes the resignation of ambassadors.  The real problem is normalizing this type of behavior for the president, when any of the other 44 would've been impeached for it.  The media can be partly to blame for this normalization, but they are calling it like they see it, as racism, in this case.



The thing is, Trump is really just bringing the sub-text of American geo-politics and and history into the text. These countries are shitholes because of American imperialism and US immigration policy has discriminated against non-whites since it's inception. 

I do not say this to excuse his behavior. It is clearly rapist and repugnant, but only the wording is new. Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any other president until Trump, but he didn't talk about it with such xenophobic rhetoric. Same thing with perpetual warfare in the middle east.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

The problem with today's media is that it shows you the bad in the world, the things that don't affect you, because they don't happen often. If the news shows me a murder, they continue to talk about the negative effects of that murder for round about 2 weeks because there isn't a new murder everyday. In fact, if there was, it wouldn't be on the news because it isn't unusual enough to put on the news.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

*cough*

This is from 2011, but looks like it hinted at this eventuality.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> This is just a lame excuse as is.


I can tell you that my preferred sources are Washington Post, NYT, occasionally WSJ or local news.  You can look them up for what many of my opinions are based on, but they're still my opinions which is why I say I shouldn't have to source everything.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I can tell you that my preferred sources are Washington Post, NYT, occasionally WSJ or local news.  You can look them up for what many of my opinions are based on, but they're still my opinions which is why I say I shouldn't have to source everything.


The thing I am getting at is that they are still just *opinions*. Not claims, which is what you want to express otherwise you are wasting precious moments of your life typing useless things on a keyboard.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> The thing I am getting at is that they are still just *opinions*. Not claims, which is what you want to express otherwise you are wasting precious moments of your life typing useless things on a keyboard.


Yes, but informed opinions based in reality, which for some reason needs to be clarified in today's political landscape.  I don't feel I am wasting anything.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yes, but informed opinions based in reality, which for some reason needs to be distinguished in today's political landscape.  I don't feel I am wasting anything.


The problem is that in the USA you pretty much have to define what "reality" you believe in. Everyone bases their understanding of reality on what they see and hear, but can be seeing and hearing completely different things based on where you get your information, since all you see and hear is mostly third-hand. I don't know if any of you ever listened to a Trump speech from start to finish without skipping parts, nor do I know if any of you actually read the exact laws he has written.


it problably doesn't matter anyways. China is gearing up it's millitary for war so shit's going to come down eventually.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> You're really just better off trolling Xzi because having a decent argument with him ends up trolling yourself.


I have known this for months now, yet each time I see him I believe that he might have changed, and then I meet the same ol' Xzi.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> I have known this for months now, yet each time I see him I believe that he might have changed, and then I meet the same ol' Xzi.


My rule of thumb is that people who list their devices and what hacks they have on it are generally not worth talking to unless you're trolling them.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> My rule of thumb is that people who list their devices and what hacks they have on it are generally not worth talking to unless you're trolling them.


wait


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> wait


(((mine is ironic so it's ok)))


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> I have known this for months now, yet each time I see him I believe that he might have changed, and then I meet the same ol' Xzi.


Yeah, some people really don't change. Retroboy after all this time still shitting over the Nintendo topics for no good reason is proof of that. Just accept that you cannot change their minds and ignore them, and wait for the terrible conclusion to their way of life to catch up to them.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> The problem is that in the USA you pretty much have to define what "reality" you believe in. Everyone bases their understanding of reality on what they see and hear, but can be seeing and hearing completely different things based on where you get your information, since all you see and hear is mostly third-hand. I don't know if any of you ever listened to a Trump speech from start to finish without skipping parts, nor do I know if any of you actually read the exact laws he has written.
> 
> 
> it problably doesn't matter anyways. China is gearing up it's millitary for war so shit's going to come down eventually.


I partially agree with you, but we have journalists to digest hefty laws for us.  The other thing worth mentioning, however, is that Trump's speeches are usually extremely short before he's off to some resort or golf course (usually owned by him).  It's not hard to sit through a whole one.  Trump also passed *one* piece of legislation in 2017, and it was a massive corporate welfare check.  Again, not hard to follow.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> The problem is that in the USA you pretty much have to define what "reality" you believe in. Everyone bases their understanding of reality on what they see and hear, but can be seeing and hearing completely different things based on where you get your information, since all you see and hear is mostly third-hand. I don't know if any of you ever listened to a Trump speech from start to finish without skipping parts, nor do I know if any of you actually read the exact laws he has written.
> 
> 
> it problably doesn't matter anyways. China is gearing up it's millitary for war so shit's going to come down eventually.


Actually for what it's worth Xzi hasn't actually read anything. In my """debate""" with him on the topic of Net Neutrality he repeatedly refused to read anything I posted from the proposal itself and then tried to argue about it's contents based upon what the sensationalist, fear mongering media has said about it. This kind of behavior is exactly why journalism (or really the members of US society as a whole afflicted with it) is so stupidly sensationalist. Everyone's too emotional about stupid shit to the point they get invested and insulted by stuff they clearly don't care enough about to become educated on the topic of.

We should raise the voting age to 30 and just hope for the best at this rate, because letting a bunch of dumb teens have a voice in politics, even if they can serve in the military and put their lives on the line, is a really bad idea.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> but we have journalists to digest hefty laws for us.


Finally getting back on topic I see...


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> snip


You clearly ignored all my arguments about Net Neutrality if that's all you got from them, so I guess we're even on that one kiddo.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You clearly ignored all my arguments about Net Neutrality if that's all you got from them, so I guess we're even on that one kiddo.


The blatant disrespect I read from your posts is astounding. You have no respect for your sparring partners.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You clearly ignored all my arguments about Net Neutrality if that's all you got from them, so I guess we're even on that one kiddo.


…

You do realize he was quoting me, right? You may have realized that if you didn't delete the quote you were responding to.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> The blatant disrespect I read from your posts is astounding. You have no respect for your sparring partners.


Maverick has not treated me with respect in basically ever.  I don't know what you expect.  You seem cool enough.



Futurdreamz said:


> …
> 
> You do realize he was quoting me, right? You may have realized that if you didn't delete the quote you were responding to.


He was responding to you yet almost his entire post was about me.  Sorry to derail your convo.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Maverick has not treated me with respect in basically ever.  I don't know what you expect.  You seem cool enough.
> 
> 
> He was responding to you yet almost his entire post was about me.  Sorry to derail your convo.



In terms of debate, he's at least attempted to refute most, if not ALL of your points in every thread I've seen you two going at it. You, on the other hand, continue with full force while refusing to yield to reason. You've even stated yourself that you didn't read some of his sources because they were wrong... Hard to respect that..


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

annnnnd this is why we can't have a politics section on temp.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Memoir said:


> In terms of debate, he's at least attempted to refute most, if not ALL of your points in every thread I've seen you two going at it. You, on the other hand, continue with full force while refusing to yield to reason. You've even stated yourself that you didn't read some of his sources because they were wrong... Hard to respect that..


Sometimes it's hard to face facts, especially when you've been conned or are susceptible to being conned.  The impasse we hit in the Net Neutrality debate is that Maverick was willing to take Ajit Pai, Comcast, and other corporate entities at their word, and take that word at face value.  I am not willing to feign naivety like that.

The debate stayed mostly civil, at least for my part...


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

I think politics on Temp would be totally fine so long as US politics weren't permitted. Again, US politics are way too sensationalist. My candidate is going to save western society. Your candidate is evil and gonna kill it, or my candidate is a saint that will bring progress and equality, your candidate is LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!!!!!!

I understand I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here but the point is that if you look at the majority of discourse regarding political candidates, it's always some extreme shit, painting them out to be some ridiculously powerful person or centralized point of power in the entire country when that really just isn't the case. People put all this weight and reputation on one person and it's absurd.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> annnnnd this is why we can't have a politics section on temp.



I've said something akin to this before. I have no issue with healthy debate, but it becomes problematic when: 

1) The premise or original topic of the thread is completely disregarded to heavily relay personal thought or feelings.. 

2) It becomes a cesspool of shit slinging and gets way off topic..

3) Some people don't know when to quit, or they completely shut someone else out (outside of reason) and use the "ignore" function and convinced themselves they've won.

It's a problem with humans I spose.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Memoir said:


> In terms of debate, he's at least attempted to refute most, if not ALL of your points in every thread I've seen you two going at it. You, on the other hand, continue with full force while refusing to yield to reason. You've even stated yourself that you didn't read some of his sources because they were wrong... Hard to respect that..


But at the same time understandable, if unfortunate. If you have grown up in an environment that provided honest information it becomes a lot easier to recognize and doubt false information while still processing it. However if you grew up in the reverse usually that involves training yourself to automatically reject information that casts doubt on your world view - and your world view is neccesary to function within the world, so if it's in doubt then interacting with the world becomes much more difficult.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I think politics on Temp would be totally fine so long as US politics weren't permitted. Again, US politics are way too sensationalist. My candidate is going to save western society. Your candidate is evil and gonna kill it, or my candidate is a saint that will bring progress and equality, your candidate is LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I understand I'm paraphrasing quite a bit here but the point is that if you look at the majority of discourse regarding political candidates, it's always some extreme shit, *painting them out to be some ridiculously powerful person or centralized point of power in the entire country when that really just isn't the case. People put all this weight and reputation on one person and it's absurd.*



What's funny is that you learn otherwise in school.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The debate stayed mostly civil, at least for my part...


I am so glad you think so highly of yourself.


----------



## Viri (Jan 13, 2018)

If only journalist would actually read this. I esp disliked how it seemed like the msm wanted riots and for race relations to sour, so they could film it for ratings. There is this thing called "minimize harm", which they never seem to bother doing.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Sometimes it's hard to face facts, especially when you've been conned or are susceptible to being conned.  The impasse we hit in the Net Neutrality debate is that Maverick was willing to take Ajit Pai, Comcast, and other corporate entities at their word, and take that word at face value.  I am not willing to feign naivety like that.
> 
> The debate stayed mostly civil, at least for my part...


>taking literally anyone but lobbyists and journalism sites at face value is bad
>but taking any journalist site that's sensationalist and fearmongering at face value and not even remotely questioning it is perfectly fine
I'm out of thinking emojis so here's this garbage instead


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Memoir said:


> What's funny is that you learn otherwise in school.


The executive has become far more powerful over time, which is why Trump has conducted the majority of his actions unilaterally, without any checks or balances.



MaverickWellington said:


> but taking any journalist site that's sensationalist and fearmongering at face value and not even remotely questioning it is perfectly fine


I never said it was.  But you call everything sensationalist because it doesn't conform to your silly views on corporate responsibility.


----------



## 330 (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> annnnnd this is why we can't have a politics section on temp.


And you know why? It's because of your behavior.

The third page of this thread is all about you and @MaverickWellington stroking each other's ego while being disrespectful to another user. Yes, what @Xzi wrote is debatable, but it doesn't mean that you should partake to a conversation about how this user is bad in a thread about the state of American journalism. Believe it or not, people don't like discussing with people that lack respect towards each other.

Now, can we please get back in topic?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

More on topic, I really dislike American journalism and media as a whole and have for years now. Remember the Trayvon Martin shit? Sensitive topic so get your pitchforks out to lynch me but when the media was muddying the whole debate by intentionally witholding information, and showing clear bias by showing only specific photos (IE Trayvon as a kid and Zimmerman's mugshots) they really fucked up the debate for a lot of people, which is why some people still believe Zimmerman is white and was a white supremacist and not just some Hispanic dork who doesn't know how to obey police orders.

He wouldn't have had to defend himself if he didn't follow Trayvon, but he also wouldn't have had to defend himself if his head weren't slammed into the concrete several times. Not that the media would report that second part, though.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The executive has become far more powerful over time, which is why Trump has conducted the majority of his actions unilaterally, without any checks or balances.


can you quote the constitution for me please? Thanks. Like you said earlier: 


Xzi said:


> Trump also passed *one* piece of legislation in 2017


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> I am so glad you think so highly of yourself.


I did say "mostly."



blujay said:


> can you quote the constitution for me please? Thanks. Like you said earlier:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_executive_actions_by_Donald_Trump


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> And you know why? It's because of your behavior.
> 
> The third page of this thread is all about you and @MaverickWellington stroking each other's ego while being disrespectful to another user. Yes, what @Xzi wrote is debatable, but it doesn't mean that you should partake to a conversation about how this user is bad in a thread about the state of American journalism. Believe it or not, people don't like discussing with people that lack respect towards each other.
> 
> Now, can we please get back in topic?


Yes I agree my behavior was uncalled for.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> But at the same time understandable, if unfortunate. If you have grown up in an environment that provided honest information it becomes a lot easier to recognize and doubt false information while still processing it. However if you grew up in the reverse usually that involves training yourself to automatically reject information that casts doubt on your world view - and your world view is neccesary to function within the world, so if it's in doubt then interacting with the world becomes much more difficult.



This is part of the problem in terms of debate. You're not going in to convince everyone you're right and they're wrong. You go in to argue your point, while trying to refute your "partner's" point(s). At the same time you try to understand and learn new information that either enforces your opinion/viewpoint or further understand/take to heart your opponent's.. I know what it's like to grow up in the latter. I've been there. I used to honestly believe everything my parents said. I mean EVERYTHING. (Didn't we all to some point?)


----------



## Viri (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> annnnnd this is why we can't have a politics section on temp.


Honestly, what's the big deal? If anything, the mods should be lenient on the politic section, and let things run rampant. Just make sure it stays inside the politic section. What's the worst that could happen, if people start arguing? As long as it stays here, I see no big deal. If people don't like it, they can always just not click the politic section link.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Viri said:


> Honestly, what's the big deal? If anything, the mods should be lenient on the politic section, and let things run rampant. Just make sure it stays inside the politic section. What's the worst that could happen, if people start arguing? As long as it stays here, I see no big deal. If people don't like it, they can always just not click the politic section link.


we should just have a political debate thread at this point. where everybody can do what Xzi, Maverick, and I have been doing for the past two pages.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> More on topic, I really dislike American journalism and media as a whole and have for years now. Remember the Trayvon Martin shit? Sensitive topic so get your pitchforks out to lynch me but when the media was muddying the whole debate by intentionally witholding information, and showing clear bias by showing only specific photos (IE Trayvon as a kid and Zimmerman's mugshots) they really fucked up the debate for a lot of people, which is why some people still believe Zimmerman is white and was a white supremacist and not just some Hispanic dork who doesn't know how to obey police orders.
> 
> He wouldn't have had to defend himself if he didn't follow Trayvon, but he also wouldn't have had to defend himself if his head weren't slammed into the concrete several times. Not that the media would report that second part, though.



The Trayvon Martin case was both upsetting and hilarious. It showed the true colors of a LOT of people.

Then there's the Ferguson case...


----------



## dimmidice (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> More on topic, I really dislike American journalism and media as a whole and have for years now. Remember the Trayvon Martin shit? Sensitive topic so get your pitchforks out to lynch me but when the media was muddying the whole debate by intentionally witholding information, and showing clear bias by showing only specific photos (IE Trayvon as a kid and Zimmerman's mugshots) they really fucked up the debate for a lot of people, which is why some people still believe Zimmerman is white and was a white supremacist and not just some Hispanic dork who doesn't know how to obey police orders.
> 
> He wouldn't have had to defend himself if he didn't follow Trayvon, but he also wouldn't have had to defend himself if his head weren't slammed into the concrete several times. Not that the media would report that second part, though.


Funny how you say the media muddies the waters by doing that but you don't mention what the right wing media did, which was the exact same on the opposite end of the spectrum.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 13, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Then there's the Ferguson case...


That was bad. That was real bad. I wasn't paying a lot of attention in those times, yet I couldn't believe some of the stuff I heard when I was.

This country is in a rough spot. Journalism doesn't help.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

blujay said:


> That was bad. That was real bad. I wasn't paying a lot of attention in those times, yet I couldn't believe some of the stuff I heard when I was.
> 
> This country is in a rough spot. Journalism doesn't help.



Quite the opposite. Journalism fuels the proverbial fire.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Memoir said:


> The Trayvon Martin case was both upsetting and hilarious. It showed the true colors of a LOT of people.
> 
> Then there's the Ferguson case...


Zimmerman was not white, but he was still a piece of shit and very likely racist.  Didn't he end up in jail anyway?  Or was it just broke and homeless?


----------



## Viri (Jan 13, 2018)

Memoir said:


> The Trayvon Martin case was both upsetting and hilarious. It showed the true colors of a LOT of people.
> 
> Then there's the Ferguson case...


I like how they used his pictures of him when he was like 10 or 12, and not his, ahem, up to date photos.


Spoiler











Whoops.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> Funny how you say the media muddies the waters by doing that but you don't mention what the right wing media did, which was the exact same on the opposite end of the spectrum.


Who cares that I didn't mention it? It's part of the problem too but it wasn't part of the example. My point as a whole is that sensationalist media pushing a bias is bad. Who gives a fuck what side of the spectrum the media network is on? If it's pushing bias, it's bad. Full stop.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Memoir said:


> Quite the opposite. Journalism fuels the proverbial fire.


Honestly the real solution to all of this is not to fix journalism -- nothing short of crashing every group and building it up from the ground up will do that -- but to encourage people to think for themselves and investigate issues beyond "DA MEDIYUH TOLD ME TO THINK DIS SO I THINK DISS DURRR"


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Who cares that I didn't mention it? It's part of the problem too but it wasn't part of the example. My point as a whole is that sensationalist media pushing a bias is bad. Who gives a fuck what side of the spectrum the media network is on? If it's pushing bias, it's bad. Full stop.


The best journalists disclose conflicts of interest and take steps to avoid ethics violations, but the truth of the matter is that everyone has their own biases.  Best people can do is report the facts and stop with the filler commentary.  Some people still wouldn't be content with that, though, especially when it comes to certain deified political figures.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Who cares that I didn't mention it? It's part of the problem too but it wasn't part of the example. My point as a whole is that sensationalist media pushing a bias is bad. Who gives a fuck what side of the spectrum the media network is on? If it's pushing bias, it's bad. Full stop.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



There's a subtle irony to this. We are actually taught to believe and fight for what we feel is right. Yet, that's what gets in the way of reason and knowledge. Ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand. I agree though, we need to further enforce this. "Fake news" isn't just some catchy phrase. You have to validate (investigate) the information for yourself and not take it at face value. It's detrimental to progress.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> The only thing that's damaging the US image are liberals thinking that they're so hip by destroying public property, stalking people online, sending death threats and protesting violently



I assume you are referring to Antifa, most of whom are anarchists, communist, socialists, or other anti-capitalists. They hate liberals.



> over a president that half the population democratically voted for.



Trump Received ~63,000,000 votes out of 235,248,000 voting aged americans(which is less than his opponent so it was not a democratic victory)




> You got a problem with the president? Criticize the decisions he takes that you don't agree to. Go to authorized protests. Express your malcontent. Be open for discussion with people that voted for him.



US citizens have the constitutional right to peacefully assemble. The first amendment intentionally excludes government white listing of protest actions. This is a really important part of our constitution that I wish more people understood. There should be no authorization required (though there often is).


> What happens instead? People protest violently and illegally.



You are unfairly characterizing all violent as being perpetuated by the left.
I can find videos of right wing people doing this shit too at protests with a much higher degree of damage
The most violent that Milo video gets is people getting signs taken out of there hands. Do you think that is comparable to the dude driving his car through protestors in Charlottesville or the Milo supporter who shot a protestor? or how about the guy who shot 5 people at a BLM protest?



> Journalists criticize every single thing of the president.



I agree that the first and the third are silly but do you think reporting that the President of The United States claims that he cheats on his wife by sexually assaulting women is not news worthy?



> They protest, but aren't open to explain why.



Bruh this is like 3 people. You can't generalize an entire movement based on 3 people.
Here is a video of someone who goes to protests explaining their opposition to trump. If I get a few more of these will you be concede that the left can explain why they are protesting?



> According to them, everything is fascist,


This is hyperbole.
You are also citing a blog post...



> yet all the things these people are doing are part of the fascist regime.



Fascism is defined as a form of radical authoritarian nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce

Doxxing is none of these things. It could perhaps be argued that it is related to "forcible suppression of opposition", but that is dependent on the society already strongly objecting to the information that is revealed. In other words, doxxing just lets the society know who someone is. It doesn't directly suppress them.

Further, the link you provided details both the right and the left doxxing their opponents which contradicts your claim that this is a problem with the left.

I recommend you do more research on fascism. Dr. Lawrence Britts Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism is a good place to start.



> No wonder why people won't listen to protests when the president actually does something bad. I've been vocal about his stance regarding global warming, but my voice was lost to all the garbage I listed above.



Trump's approval rating is getting lower and lower so perhaps the protesting is working.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> I assume you are referring to Antifa, most of whom are anarchists, communist, socialists, or other anti-capitalists. They hate liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He lost the popular vote by approximately 3,000,000 votes.

Using the US population as a whole doesn't really count. Considering the actual amount of people who voted? The margin was rather small. I agree with the rest of your post, though.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 13, 2018)

Memoir said:


> He lost the popular vote by approximately 3,000,000 votes.
> 
> Using the US population as a whole doesn't really count. Considering the actual amount of people who voted? The margin was rather small. I agree with the rest of your post, though.


thanks that was really dumb of me


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> thanks that was really dumb of me


We all make mistakes.


----------



## 330 (Jan 13, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> Trump Received ~63,000,000 votes out of 235,248,000 voting aged americans(which is less than his opponent so it was not a democratic victory)


I should've worded my post better. I meant the population who voted (but really, I don't think anybody who didn't vote should complain about him even if you hated Clinton. There were other people to vote too).





Whole lotta love said:


> US citizens have the constitutional right to peacefully assemble. The first amendment intentionally excludes government white listing of protest actions. This is a really important part of our constitution that I wish more people understood. There should be no authorization required (though there often is).


The second amendment gives the right to all US citizens to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean it's right. It should be regulated, just like protests. Unauthorized protests can turn out to be very dangerous for both the protesters and the passerby.



Whole lotta love said:


> You are unfairly characterizing all violent as being perpetuated by the left.
> I can find videos of right wing people doing this shit too at protests with a much higher degree of damage
> The most violent that Milo video gets is people getting signs taken out of there hands. Do you think that is comparable to the dude driving his car through protestors in Charlottesville or the Milo supporter who shot a protestor? or how about the guy who shot 5 people at a BLM protest?


Now, what am I going to write can be debatable and I will respect your decision to tell me that I'm wrong (just like anything else written here).

If I'm driving a car and I see a group of masked people coming towards me with bats and metal chains and people shouting stuff I can't hear, the first thing I would do is set the reverse gear and get the hell out.
However, if what I'm seeing is really shocking to me, I can understand why someone would just push forward. Especially if they have no idea about an unauthorized protest going on and they (rightfully) assume that their life is in danger. You shouldn't be protesting with your face covered while holding bats and metal chains.

As for the other two, I never claimed non-liberals to be saints. But these seem like isolated cases to me. YouTube is filled with compilations of liberals being aggressive, especially during "protests". Why would you even go to a protest by covering your face?




Whole lotta love said:


> I agree that the first and the third are silly but do you think reporting that the President of The United States claims that he cheats on his wife by sexually assaulting women is not news worthy?


That was a private conversation, it's not like he tweeted about it. We all say stuff we don't really mean sometimes.



Whole lotta love said:


> Bruh this is like 3 people. You can't generalize an entire movement based on 3 people.
> Here is a video of someone who goes to protests explaining their opposition to trump. If I get a few more of these will you be concede that the left can explain why they are protesting?


Mine was just an example. Also, the person wasn't even in a protest.



Whole lotta love said:


> This is hyperbole.
> You are also citing a blog post...


Again, just an example. Here's another article by The Guardian though.



Whole lotta love said:


> Fascism is defined as a form of radical authoritarian nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce
> 
> Doxxing is none of these things. It could perhaps be argued that it is related to "forcible suppression of opposition", but that is dependent on the society already strongly objecting to the information that is revealed. In other words, doxxing just lets the society know who someone is. It doesn't directly suppress them.
> 
> ...


Doxxing can be definitely seen as "do as we say or we will ruin your life" though.



Whole lotta love said:


> Trump's approval rating is getting lower and lower so perhaps the protesting is working.


Just like Hillary Clinton would've most certainly won the elections. People are just afraid to say that they support Trump.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> Just like Hillary Clinton would've most certainly won the elections. People are just afraid to say that they support Trump.


If they're afraid to say they support Trump because he's so outside the norms of basic human decency, then perhaps they should listen to that part of themselves and vote for somebody else.  That's of course assuming Trump gets to run again after the Mueller indictments come down and/or the mid-term elections go the way other recent elections have.  Republicans are retiring in record numbers this year.


----------



## 330 (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If they're afraid to say they support Trump because he's so outside the norms of basic human decency, then perhaps they should listen to that part of themselves and vote for somebody else.  That's of course assuming Trump gets to run again after the Mueller indictments come down and/or the mid-term elections go the way other recent elections have.  Republicans are retiring in record numbers this year.


They're afraid to get pepper sprayed on the face, most likely.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> They're afraid to get pepper sprayed on the face, most likely.


Police tend to do that when any group gets a little too rowdy.  As for the neo-nazis butting heads with antifa, let 'em.  They're both extremist groups and nobody should be siding with either.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If they're afraid to say they support Trump because he's so outside the norms of basic human decency, then perhaps they should listen to that part of themselves and vote for somebody else.  That's of course assuming Trump gets to run again after the Mueller indictments come down and/or the mid-term elections go the way other recent elections have.  Republicans are retiring in record numbers this year.


They're not afraid because they are embarrassed, but because they have been informed by media that they may be physically attacked if they vocally support him. That's a pretty big difference. It's like telling someone in Germany at the height of Nazi power "If you're so afraid of criticizing Hitler, then perhaps your criticisms are invalid"

Yes, I invoked the rule.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Police tend to do that when any group gets a little too rowdy.  As for the neo-nazis butting heads with antifa, let 'em.  They're both extremist groups and nobody should be siding with either.


The problem with not siding with either is that both groups are at the mentality of "if you're not with us you're against us," forcing you to join or go to the other side for defense. Neo-Nazis had been more or less brushed under the rug during the Obama administration, but came out in full force AFTER Anti-Fa reared it's ugly head. I'd argue they fought back in defense.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> They're not afraid because they are embarrassed, but because they have been informed by media that they may be physically attacked if they vocally support him. That's a pretty big difference. It's like telling someone in Germany at the height of Nazi power "If you're so afraid of criticizing Hitler, then perhaps your criticisms are invalid"
> 
> Yes, I invoked the rule.


The right has a hard time choosing how they want to portray the left, don't they?  Half the time the left-wing are "bleeding-heart SJW nerds," the other half of the time they're a dangerous majority policing the streets to beat the shit out of anyone who professes support of Trump.  Regardless, Trump and his feckless crew of Khaki-wearers are the ones in control.  You can't be the Empire and Rebellion in one.  You can't be the aggressor and still play the victim.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The right has a hard time choosing how they want to portray the left, don't they?  Half the time the left-wing are "bleeding-heart SJW nerds," the other half of the time they're a dangerous majority policing the streets to beat the shit out of anyone who professes support of Trump.  Regardless, Trump and his feckless crew of Khaki-wearers are the ones in control.  You can't be the Empire and Rebellion in one.  You can't be the aggressor and still play the victim.


Sure you can. Ever seen a black guy pull the race card because that particular black guy was a criminal and got caught?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> Sure you can. Ever seen a black guy pull the race card because that particular black guy was a criminal and got caught?


But it doesn't work in that case, the guy still goes to jail.  Thus it shouldn't work for the alt-right.  Especially when their directive is more to take away the rights of other people than to extend their own rights.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> But it doesn't work in that case, the guy still goes to jail.  Thus it shouldn't work for the alt-right.  Especially when their directive is more to take away the rights of other people than to extend their own rights.



That's a shallow, and rather unfounded viewpoint. You say Republicans (lol) want to take away rights.. But the Democrats (loosely used) attempted to achieve a relatable outcome with gun control (lol even more) and a few other things. Seriously, I think you should more blame the few people with power instead of a party as a whole.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> But it doesn't work in that case, the guy still goes to jail.  Thus it shouldn't work for the alt-right.  Especially when their directive is more to take away the rights of other people than to extend their own rights.


You genuinely have no idea what the Anti-fa fascists narrative is, do you? How people would get their cars scratched up at universities if they had the wrong bumper sticker, how a fun prank was to imbed a normal trump lawn sign with nails and have that actually get run over, or how even psycologists are being silenced for warning that transgendered people often regret their surgery?


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 13, 2018)

330 said:


> The second amendment gives the right to all US citizens to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean it's right. It should be regulated, just like protests. Unauthorized protests can turn out to be very dangerous for both the protesters and the passerby.


Trusting the government to regulate who can and cannot protest sets a very dangerous precedent. I do not agree at all.

Now, what am I going to write can be debatable and I will respect your decision to tell me that I'm wrong (just like anything else written here).



> If I'm driving a car and I see a group of masked people coming towards me with bats and metal chains and people shouting stuff I can't hear, the first thing I would do is set the reverse gear and get the hell out.
> However, if what I'm seeing is really shocking to me, I can understand why someone would just push forward. Especially if they have no idea about an unauthorized protest going on and they (rightfully) assume that their life is in danger. You shouldn't be protesting with your face covered while holding bats and metal chains.



He was an attendee of the protest. He traveled there from Kentucky. How can you say he was just driving through and didn't know there was a protest?

He attended as a member of the white supremacist group Vanguard America

What evidence do you have that they were coming towards him? I have seen all the footage and haven't seen anything to indicate that.

Further, most of the people in the videos are not masked.

Finally, there are two other cars moving very slowly in front of him. Why did they not have a fight or flight response and run 20 people over?



> As for the other two, I never claimed non-liberals to be saints.


No you didn't claim non-libs to be saints (which I never said you said), but you are saying that these are all problems with the left.



> But these seem like isolated cases to me.


How many people have Antifa killed?
How many people have the far-right killed?



> YouTube is filled with compilations of liberals being aggressive, especially during "protests".


This is exactly the problem. You are looking at youtube compilations that filter out all of the normal boring shit that goes on at protests. Go to a few protests yourself and see what it's like

Youtube is also filled with compilations of conservatives being aggressive. You cannot conclude from this that therefore conservative activism is thus illegitimate.



> Why would you even go to a protest by covering your face?



To protect oneself from doxxing which as we've already agreed, happens on both sides.
(Before you say this is contradictory, I did not say doxxing is good, I said doxxing is not fascism).



> That was a private conversation, it's not like he tweeted about it. We all say stuff we don't really mean sometimes.



Who cares if it's a private conversation? I'd love to know every damn thing each and every one of our elected officials has said. It makes it easier to judge them and know if they are being honest. Transparency is a good thing.

If Barack Obama said to Hillary in private that he hates white people I'd damn well want to know about it.

What indication do you have that he didn't mean it?
Considering he has been accused of sexual harassment and even rape by 19 different women since 1989, he is buds with convicted pedophile and child pimp Jeffrey Epstein, and he was known to walk in on beauty peagent contestants dressing rooms it seems like it's much more likely that he did mean what he said.

But, assuming you are right and there is somehow proof that he didn't actually mean what he said, is that much better? Do we really want the leader of our country to be a man who lies about assaulting women to impress his friends?



> Mine was just an example. Also, the person wasn't even in a protest.


Your example doesn't prove your statement though. It proves that 3 people at a protest didn't were either not very articulate or not very informed. 
Again... you haven't proved that this is a problem with the left. here is a video that shows more stupid people at a right-wing rally than yours does
This is not reflective of all the people at the rally, let alone all Trump supporters or the American right. You know the Daily Show only put in the most extreme examples.
Why does it matter if they are physically at a protest? Cornell West goes to protests all the time.



> Again, just an example. Here's another article by The Guardian though.


Again, this doesn't prove your point that the left calls everything fascist. And even if it did, you have not proven that they are wrong.
Klein's piece is describing tenets of fascism and how she sees those in the current American right. Your argument would be much stronger if you explained why she (or the other author on the HuffPo blog) were wrong, instead of just noting that their pieces existed.



> Doxxing can be definitely seen as "do as we say or we will ruin your life" though.


Right but that's not intrinsically fascist. 
Donald Trump is currently using that tactic with North Korea, do you consider that fascism?



> Just like Hillary Clinton would've most certainly won the elections.


Reputable statisticians gave him a decent shot of winning which I think is fair (but I cannot really comment as I'm not a statistician) 



> People are just afraid to say that they support Trump.



[citation needed]


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> You genuinely have no idea what the Anti-fa fascists narrative is, do you? How people would get their cars scratched up at universities if they had the wrong bumper sticker, how a fun prank was to imbed a normal trump lawn sign with nails and have that actually get run over, or how even psycologists are being silenced for warning that transgendered people often regret their surgery?



Lmao it was a trump supporter who put the nails in. 

Did you know that Antifa also... BROKE WINDOWS?!!

The horror! They scratch cars, drive over lawn signs, and do an absolutely terrible job of censoring Jordan Peterson (who has not been silenced at all).

We definitely need to be afraid of them, and definitely don't need to afraid of the guys who drive cars into crowds of people, or the guy who stabbed people at the Portland Light Rail, or the guy who stabbed Timothy Caughman to death, or the guy who shot up the movie theater in Louisiana, or the guy who shot up the planned parenthood, or the guy who shot up the church, or the guy who shot up the jewish center

No, these far-right extremists are not to be feared, but the evil leftists who break widows, scratch cars, and fold lawn signs.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> Lmao it was a trump supporter who put the nails in.
> 
> Did you know that Antifa also... BROKE WINDOWS?!!
> 
> ...



I'm sure you remember this

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://www.snopes.com/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/

My point is not that the left is more murdery, just that they are perceived to be so. And it's possible that the left has the same level of intent for murder or more, but don't have the means due to guns and hunting knives being a right thing. However, the intent is still there and expressed as hostile action. How many riots have the Anti-Fa had that lead to property damage and even injuries compared to the alt-right?


----------



## dimmidice (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> My point is not that the left is more murdery, just that they are perceived to be so.



"Violence has been ratcheting up on all sides during white supremacist rallies in recent months — but "antifa" is not planning the rallies, and statistically poses a lesser danger." From your own link. So no the left isn't perceived to be more "murdery" The right is perceived to be more murdery, given that they've actually murdered people. Or at the least caused deaths.

Also youtube isn't a news site. You really shouldn't be believing every video on there. I have no idea why you even linked that video as it's completely nonsensical. How did you even find that video? It has 189 views.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> "Violence has been ratcheting up on all sides during white supremacist rallies in recent months — but "antifa" is not planning the rallies, and statistically poses a lesser danger." From your own link. So no the left isn't perceived to be more "murdery" The right is perceived to be more murdery, given that they've actually murdered people. Or at the least caused deaths.
> 
> Also youtube isn't a news site. You really shouldn't be believing every video on there. I have no idea why you even linked that video as it's completely nonsensical.


Even if you didn't watch the video you should know what it is. Or did you forget the story of the four black teens that kidnapped a white kid then forced him to scream "fuck trump"?


----------



## dimmidice (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> Even if you didn't watch the video you should know what it is. Or did you forget the story of the four black teens that kidnapped a white kid then forced him to scream "fuck trump"?


no never even heard of that. https://www.snopes.com/were-hate-charges-blm-kidnappers-dropped/ Seems they got arrested which is nice 

Edit: oh, and again the right has literally caused deaths. Why exactly are you defending this? There's bad people on both sides, nobody would say otherwise. But it's clear which side is worse. hint: it's the one which is on the KKK's side.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> I'm sure you remember this
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




THESE ARE JUST BLACK PEOPLE. They have no affiliation with Antifa or BLM or whatever leftist boogey-man.

Even if they were, how many dead bodies does this add to the pile?

What these assholes did was fucking disgusting, but in the context of this conversation it proves almost nothing.

Dawg anyone can go to a store and get a hunting knife and guns are very easy to get in most states.
If they're as big of a threat as you say they are, don't you think they would have figured out how to get knives and guns yet?
Breaking windows, scratching cars, and folding lawn signs does NOT show intent for committing mass murders


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Now to bring that back on topic: American media has found it exceedingly profitable to pit fellow americans against each other, and it just didn't care. Before the elections the KKK was effectively a forgotten nuisance that nobody liked, and I don't think the Anti-Fa were even really a thing. But then everyone got hostile and nasty, and even worse - drew a line of a sand where everyone on each side is lumped together and more or less treated as one. There is no "left" anymore; just the alt-left which includes SJW, Anti-Fa, Clinton, transgenders, third wave feminists, people who pump girl hormones into their five year old child just because he wants to play with dresses and doesn't understand what a sex change involves, and the anti-vax movement who is more than willing to let babies and old people die because they are convinced that their child will become severely atustic. And there is no more Right, only the Alt-right which includes the KKK, racists, neo-nazis, and neo-fascists. It's more than possible that you belong to NOBODY in either group, but every single debate has devolved to the point that there is no more middle ground - and all of a sudden the discussion changes to "because these people a worse those other people get a free pass" and everyone ends up associating with a side and ends up defending it irregardless of how much they actually agree with it, since they don't really know how bad their side is but they are certain the other side is horrible. Thus, Trump is automatically associated with the alt-right and the beneficial policies he has enacted largely go ignored. Any attempt at a meaningful debate (including this one) ends up shifting to the party line rhetoric which then remains unsolveable because people cannot agree on the facts. But that still generates a lot of engagement, So news sources and Facebook and Twitter make lots of money and maximize their income by creating more and more controversial content at the expense of accuracy. That has led to a feedback loop where we know all this stuff but all it does is make us more and more angry and defensive and aggressive. We no longer are capable of a debate which concludes with a compromise or solution.


----------



## Viri (Jan 13, 2018)

The media is a very powerful tool, and it scares me how much power they have.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> You genuinely have no idea what the Anti-fa fascists narrative is, do you? How people would get their cars scratched up at universities if they had the wrong bumper sticker, how a fun prank was to imbed a normal trump lawn sign with nails and have that actually get run over, or how even psycologists are being silenced for warning that transgendered people often regret their surgery?


You keep bringing up antifa as an argument against the left, but again they're closer to anarchists than the political left-wing in the US.  There's the big difference recently: the mainstream right is willing to embrace the alt-right.  Never once will you see Bernie Sanders praising antifa as "very fine people."  The left-wing still recognizes a nut as a nut, 24-hour news cycle or no.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 13, 2018)

> Thus, Trump is automatically associated with the alt-right and the beneficial policies he has enacted largely go ignored.



Agreed! Trump is actually a part of the alt-left 



Futurdreamz said:


> There is no "left" anymore; just the alt-left which includes [...] the anti-vax movement who is more than willing to let babies and old people die because they are convinced that their child will become severely atustic.











> Any attempt at a meaningful debate (including this one) ends up shifting to the party line rhetoric which then remains unsolveable because people cannot agree on the facts.


dawg your whole rant right now has no evidence (or paragraphs) and is full of loaded generalizations like "SJWs" and "transgenders", along with very really questionable statements, like antifa being allied with the Clintons (despite antifa largely being compromised by anti-capitalists who are fundamentally opposed to neoliberals like the clintons). How are we supposed to agree on the facts if you don't present any to back up your claims and when others bring in facts that contradict your claims, you pivot and don't respond?

I'm trying to engage with you in a intellectually honest discussion and you turn away from it decry how no one can have honest discourse anymore.

You're frustrated with party line rhetoric? All I've heard from you is right wing talking points.
"Antifa are the REAL fascists™"
"Black people manipulate the legal system"
"There is no biological basis for gender dysphoria"
"SJW's, feminists, and Hillary Clinton are bad, and they are just as bad as neo-nazi's"
"Donald Trump is actually a really good president people just don't talk about it

This is what Sean Hannity says every damn day dawg.

Do you also believe that illegal immigration is big problem and that we need to lower taxes for corporations?


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 13, 2018)

Illegal immigration is a problem, but corporations should have their taxes increased - or bare minimum the more stupid tax breaks be eliminated. Like I said, company mentality in the USA seems to have fallen to nothing more than generating profit for shareholders at all costs. 

It's not really possible to have a fully "intellectually honest" debate on topics such as this - and it's a complete waste of time. We're not discussing simple topics like who's pig is going to win the race at the local fair, but great big global topics where there are people who's sole job is to understand the topic. In the USA, neither the government nor the media have a legal responsibility to be fully transparent in the information they provide to the general public, and they regularly abuse that in order to bend public favour to their whims. All we have to debate with is third-hand accounts of what happened that may or may not be inaccurate and missing key details. It's third-hand, but the volume of it is so overwhelming that we end up picking and choosing what we know and accept based on our opinion, so we now are trying to have a debate when only having about half the facts. The end result is not a benifical debate where a conclusion is reached and action is taken on that conclusion, but a perpetual argument where the only thing on the line is everyone's pride in themselves and their learning - leading to zero benefit to ever admit you are wrong and infinite incentive to find a way to explain that you are still right. It is incredibly easy to get wrapped up into these debates, especially on a discussion forum where people can drop out and immediately be replaced by someone chiming in without reading or remembering the full thread history.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 13, 2018)

DarthDub said:


> But Haiti IS a shithole. Where's the lie though?


It was pretty darn great until the earthquakes/hurricanes hit and other countries basically refused aid except in tourism cities


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 13, 2018)

Every media created has been, and always will be used as a propaganda tool. News organizations are no exception. Most press companies are for-profit, therefore appealing to a specific audience to confirm their views is an easy way to quickly build a viewer base. Journalism at its core should have a bias towards a truth being unveiled. Otherwise it’s propaganda. 

I personally think that the political bias in American journalism became rampant during the Reagan years. Much of it was towards the liberal side, as Reagan’s anti-USSR rhetoric frightened many at the prospect of a second Cold War, or nuclear holocaust. Then came Rupert Murdoch, Bill Oreilly, and Fox News in 98 I believe, which collected and galvanized a conservative constituency. I can’t say I blame them. There was a profitable gap in the industry that they went after. However, they really took op-eds and talk show formats to a whole new level, and began “steering” the conservative community to specific viewpoints. 

Other news organizations responded by copying the business model and programming format because the lines were being drawn, and they knew they could profit by being the other side of these viewpoints. 

It’s all devolved into a shitshow, and with the advent of the internet, information travels at an incredible speed. Doesn’t matter if it’s truthful or not, it gets viewers and that brings in money. This is all protected under the 1st Amendment, and personally, I see civil war happening before either side concedes ANY view to be wrong.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Every media created has been, and always will be used as a propaganda tool. News organizations are no exception. Most press companies are for-profit, therefore appealing to a specific audience to confirm their views is an easy way to quickly build a viewer base. Journalism at its core should have a bias towards a truth being unveiled. Otherwise it’s propaganda.


The thing is: it's propaganda most of all when it's in support of whatever government effort there is to screw over the general American populace.  Let's not forget how this started.  Long before he announced his campaign for president, Trump went on Fox News to loudly bitch about his false narrative birther campaign.  Everybody knew he was full of shit, but eventually Obama released his birth certificate and it was confirmed.  In his now (later) years, Trump attacks all *OTHER *media, but takes policy advice from Fox programs directly, and even calls Fox News executives after certain programs to praise them*.  Trump (and Fox News) have always been the fathers of fake news, yet they try to attribute that to various other media outlets.  As shitty as CNN and certain other programs have been, they are not most to blame for the declining state of TV media.

* https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/inside-the-feedback-loop-between-the-president-and-fox-news

Excerpt:


Spoiler



Fox hosts regularly get calls from Trump about segments he likes—or doesn’t. “When you worked at Fox, you knew that at any moment Roger Ailes was watching. Every day was like a job interview with Ailes. Now it’s the same way for Trump,” says a veteran Fox News contributor. According to sources, Trump doesn’t explicitly dictate talking points the way Ailes did, but over time, the effect can be similar. “What he usually does is he’ll call after a show and say, ‘I _really_ enjoyed that,’” a former Fox anchor told me. “The highest compliment is, ‘I really learned something.’ Then you know he got a new policy idea.” But knowing Trump always could be tuning in means the network is being programmed for an audience of one. “He has the same embattled view as a typical Fox viewer—that ‘the liberal elites hate me; they’re trying to bring me down,’” an executive said.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The thing is: it's propaganda most of all when it's in support of whatever government effort there is to screw over the general American populace.  Let's not forget how this started.  Long before he announced his campaign for president, Trump went on Fox News to loudly bitch about his false narrative birther campaign.  Everybody knew he was full of shit, but eventually Obama released his birth certificate and it was confirmed.  In his now (later) years, Trump attacks all *OTHER *media, but takes policy advice from Fox programs directly, and even calls Fox News executives after certain programs to praise them*.  Trump (and Fox News) have always been the fathers of fake news, yet they try to attribute that to various other media outlets.  As shitty as CNN and certain other programs have been, they are not most to blame for the declining state of TV media.
> 
> * https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/inside-the-feedback-loop-between-the-president-and-fox-news
> 
> ...


Sorry friend, “onion” news was around long before Fox opened up shop. And, all you’ve done with your article citations is proven the point that people will seek out confirmation for their viewpoints. Again, you brought President Trump into this thread when it’s about the state of American journalism. Why? It’s just derailing the point of the discussion.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Sorry friend, “onion” news was around long before Fox opened up shop. And, all you’ve done with your article citations is proven the point that people will seek out confirmation for their viewpoints. Again, you brought President Trump into this thread when it’s about the state of American journalism. Why? It’s just derailing the point of the discussion.


The Onion never claimed to be anything other than satirical, though some dumb people might take it as serious like they did with the Colbert Report.  Hilariously, The Onion gave up writing satirical articles on Trump a while ago because they were all coming true.  Now they just occasionally cover what he does/says truthfully.

Fox News labels all but two of their programs as "entertainment," not news, because they wouldn't qualify as such.  Of course, you'd be hard pressed to track that information down for yourself, because they're intentionally dishonest and deceptive about it.  When Shep Smith or Chris Wallace report facts, Fox News viewers get angry about it.

The post you quoted was entirely on-topic, please QQ moar.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 13, 2018)

people ruined everything, if only there was less people then the world might be peaceful

but yeah journalism is shit and its even worse when people just regurgitate the headlines as facts, when even the stories themselves clarify that the headline was BS to get clicks


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> people ruined everything, if only there was less people then the world might be peaceful
> 
> but yeah journalism is shit and its even worse when people just regurgitate the headlines as facts, when even the stories themselves clarify that the headline was BS to get clicks


Well that bleeds into a lot of other subjects like religious "be fruitful and multiply" shenanigans.  I agree on general principle though.  People still let baser instincts get the better of them and have too much unprotected sex.  Countries like China and India are definitely overpopulated, and the US has densely overpopulated areas as well.  With so many people you get almost an inverse dehumanizing effect, people forget that we're all mostly the same.  That's where more base instinct in tribalism comes into play.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 13, 2018)

Not to derail the thread but I’m legit curious what the americans among us think of Dwayne Johnson’s intend to run for president 2024.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

WiiUBricker said:


> Not to derail the thread but I’m legit curious what the americans among us think of Dwayne Johnson’s intend to run for president 2024.


Every celebrity claims they'll be running at some point now.  Doesn't mean it'll actually pan out.  Though after a C-list TV celebrity is elected president, it does somewhat open up the can of worms.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 13, 2018)

Here is an excellent video on Media and Human bias you should all watch.



To summarize​
*Natural Human Bias* - Limited world view from small environment you live in. Evolutionary assumptions to always assume the worse not as useful nowadays. People also tend to be over confident in the information they have, thinking they have the best information.

*Outdated information* - Teachers teach what they learn in school, but don't keep up to date with new information. What was true in the past isn't true because things change over the years.

*News Bias* - Over exaggerate events to get more views. Negative stories gets more attention than positive ones. Human evolution makes us pay more attention to the negative rather than the positive.
Swed's score worse than the U.S. of Knowledge about the world.
European media just as bad as U.S media. Lots of media around the world is pretty bad with bias.

Good rule of thumb assumptions to prevent bias.
​
*Most things improve*

*Most people are in the middle* - (e.g. Gap between rich and poor is shortening. Most people are in the middle. And wage gap is improving.)

*First Social, then Rich* - (Social development comes first before improvement in money. Countries don't need to be very very rich in order to get the social development they need. Majority are in the middle, having education, electricity, and so. Of course doesn't apply to everyone, but its a more accurate generalization to assume things are in the middle and improving, then to assume they are getting worse.)

*Danger of things are over exaggerated *- Danger of things much less than media says.
Many people really have little faith in our species, and ability to tackle issues properly. But data shows otherwise, and things are improving.
And also have little faith in the intelligence of humans. Remember its not always peoples fault they are misinformed. Many factors can contribute to this. Best we can do is have a calm rational discussion without insulting the intelligence of others. Once you get to name calling people will shut you out.

People are not as stupid as someone will make them out to be, and there could be reasons why they believe what they believe. Even if you think you give the best information, there might be something else contributing to why they wont easily change their minds. Its best to understand why to better tackle the debate than to insult the person.


----------



## Nightwish (Jan 13, 2018)

SG854 said:


> (e.g. Gap between rich and poor is shortening. Most people are in the middle. And wage gap is improving.)



I agree with all the rest, but this is retarded and contradicted by every serious analysis. [citation needed, but I can find a few] It isn't close to 2007 in the US, and it's much, much further away in euroland. 

I'd also like to point out that most people are too busy working too long and too worried about paying their bills to figure out what's true and what's not. And I could only hope to have anything similar to The Atlantic or the Washington Post around here, but that's not going to happen anytime soon, so no, you could have much less useful and more manipulative media that would fight social media (with it's many, huge faults) tooth and nail to control the socio-political narrative.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

WiiUBricker said:


> Not to derail the thread but I’m legit curious what the americans among us think of Dwayne Johnson’s intend to run for president 2024.


Celebrities shouldn't be president. It just leads to PR stunts over actual presidential behavior. It's why I don't support Oprah or Kanye either.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 13, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Here is an excellent video on Media and Human bias you should all watch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yoooo is that the Swedish "Overpopulation/Peak Child" guy?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Celebrities shouldn't be president. It just leads to PR stunts over actual presidential behavior. It's why I don't support Oprah or Kanye either.


If you're genuine about that, I'm glad you're willing to admit Trump shouldn't be president.  Celebrities don't understand governing or the legislative process as they need to for such a position.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If you're genuine about that, I'm glad you admit Trump shouldn't be president.  Celebrities don't understand governing or the legislative process.


Have you made a single post in this thread that wasn't crying about Trump


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 13, 2018)

WiiUBricker said:


> Not to derail the thread but I’m legit curious what the americans among us think of Dwayne Johnson’s intend to run for president 2024.


I previously thought it'd be a decent thing, since he's a great guy and all, but I've looked at some talking points and now I'd definitely rather have someone with a provable political track record and deep knowledge on government affairs (rather than having to learn stuff on the job)


----------



## Xzi (Jan 13, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Have you made a single post in this thread that wasn't crying about Trump


Yeah, that one wasn't even crying about Trump, it was only pointing out that most would consider him a "celebrity."


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, that one wasn't even crying about Trump, it was only pointing out that most would consider him a "celebrity."


I'd hope so considering he had a show titled "The Celebrity Apprentice"


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The post you quoted was entirely on-topic, please QQ moar.


This is what’s inflammatory in your part. While the rest was debate, the response could do better without the flaming. The only one I see crying is you, over something that’s unrelated to the thread topic. It’s constructive criticism my dude, no need for animosity. At least towards me.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 14, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> This is what’s inflammatory in your part. While the rest was debate, the response could do better without the flaming. The only one I see crying is you, over something that’s unrelated to the thread topic. It’s constructive criticism my dude, no need for animosity. At least towards me.


Might just be my interpretation, but I thought he was just being lighthearted about the fact that the topic's drifted so far


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> This is what’s inflammatory in your part. While the rest was debate, the response could do better without the flaming. The only one I see crying is you, over something that’s unrelated to the thread topic. It’s constructive criticism my dude, no need for animosity. At least towards me.


My point was: why try to make that argument when I was clearly staying on-topic?  Yes, I mentioned Trump, that doesn't mean you should gloss over every other word in my post.  Goes for a lot of other members here too.  When it comes to media and the war on media, it's kind of impossible to discuss thoroughly without mentioning him and Fox News.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 14, 2018)

I'd think that the only reason Trump made it past canidancy was because there was a dozen or so canidates for the Republicans all vying to be chosen, leading to a lot of white noise where the only think you remembered was Trump's shenanigans. It's possible that next election there will be even more on both sides, leading to the person being voted for being the one that manages to stand out as the most horrible of the lot.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> I'd think that the only reason Trump made it past canidancy was because there was a dozen or so canidates for the Republicans all vying to be chosen, leading to a lot of white noise where the only think you remembered was Trump's shenanigans. It's possible that next election there will be even more on both sides, leading to the person being voted for being the one that manages to stand out as the most horrible of the lot.


I don't see the Dems as having more than 3-4 good options, but it probably will be a shitshow free-for-all on the Republican side again to try and usurp Trump.  Assuming he's still in office for the 2020 election.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 14, 2018)

Nightwish said:


> I agree with all the rest, but this is retarded and contradicted by every serious analysis. [citation needed, but I can find a few] It isn't close to 2007 in the US, and it's much, much further away in euroland.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that most people are too busy working too long and too worried about paying their bills to figure out what's true and what's not. And I could only hope to have anything similar to The Atlantic or the Washington Post around here, but that's not going to happen anytime soon, so no, you could have much less useful and more manipulative media that would fight social media (with it's many, huge faults) tooth and nail to control the socio-political narrative.


Yes, I was going to make that same point. People are too busy. And also it takes time to see both sides of the argument, and heavy research which people don't have the time for. Which is why its not necessarily their fault for not knowing.

The wage thing what I meant is that its shifting and less people are earning less than a dollar a day. This doesn't mean there aren't any that don't earn a dollar a day, or that their isn't any earnings gap, but it is improving, moving more towards the middle on the graph when you take into account the world population.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yoooo is that the Swedish "Overpopulation/Peak Child" guy?


I have no idea. I barley found about this guy today. I know he's from Sweden. I would have to check his overpopulation video.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 14, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I have no idea. I barley found about this guy today. I know he's from Sweden. I would have to check his overpopulation video.


If it is the same guy, you'll like it. He's very engaging


----------



## SG854 (Jan 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If it is the same guy, you'll like it. He's very engaging


Oh you know what. Are you talking about the gumball video?
I just saw that video today, which lead to the video I linked. 
Someone on temp linked that video. And ya I really like that video. 
I love it when they use visual representations, it gives a clearer image on the situation.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Jan 14, 2018)

One thing that annoys me the most is when CNN, or Fox (especially Fox) reports on something outside of the country - they create things about people and said country that doesn't even exist or isn't really what's true.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 14, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Oh you know what. Are you talking about the gumball video?
> I just saw that video today, which lead to the video I linked.
> Someone on temp linked that video. And ya I really like that video.
> I love it when they use visual representations, it gives a clearer image on the situation.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


>



This was the video I was talking about.
So it seems like a different guy, or is it the same guy? I dunno. Don't feel like clicking on videos right now to figure out.
But interesting video though.

He seems cool from the 1 video I saw. I'll watch the video you linked later on.
His stuff is interesting.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> My point was: why try to make that argument when I was clearly staying on-topic?  Yes, I mentioned Trump, that doesn't mean you should gloss over every other word in my post.  Goes for a lot of other members here too.  When it comes to media and the war on media, it's kind of impossible to discuss thoroughly without mentioning him and Fox News.


Well, Fox News without a doubt. I just don’t see how President Trump ties into the topic, other than they had a lot to do with him garnering support during and after the GOP primaries. I can support that argument wholeheartedly. But, my point is he’s a byproduct of the propaganda, not the proponent.

I wasn’t glossing over your posts, I read them thoroughly and offered a different perspective, and pointed out your mistake in claiming that Fox was the father of fake news. You then attacked me for it, which is poor debate practice. I know another someone who attacked people during debates constantly....

See what I’m getting at? I’m mostly on your side, just like most average Americans at this point. But attacking rather then questioning or debating will only push folks to the other side. Right into the arms of the people you despise. You need to rise above the status quo if you want people to hear you out and consider your viewpoint, because as stated repeatedly, the status quo is shit right now.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> pointed out your mistake in claiming that Fox was the father of fake news.


That wasn't a mistake, though.  Only Fox tries to sell people shit and claim it's refried beans.  Other programs outside Fox News at least source their information and/or mostly just regurgitate yesterday's headlines from sources other than themselves.  This is all of course ignoring how scary it is in the first place that an entertainment channel dictates government policy.  No other news channel has that kind of power, yet as the article I linked points out, Fox News and its viewers (Trump included) like to keep playing the victim regardless.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That wasn't a mistake, though.  Only Fox tries to sell people shit and claim it's refried beans.  Other programs outside Fox News at least source their information and/or mostly just regurgitate yesterday's headlines from sources other than themselves.  This is all of course ignoring how scary it is in the first place that an entertainment channel dictates government policy.  No other news channel has that kind of power, yet as the article I linked points out, Fox News and its viewers (Trump included) like to keep playing the victim regardless.


Well, I can certainly concede that Fox is by far the largest perpetrator in pushing out agenda driven propaganda. But saying that they’re the “father of fake news” insinuates they invented/pioneered fake news. They obviously spew GOP rhetoric at an ungodly level, but they certainly didn’t invent fake news. Maybe a better term would be “news labeled propaganda,” perhaps? They definitely fathered that.

Unfortunately they’ve become extremely successful, and other networks are following suit. Then you have Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter which, if you ask me, are really the primary tools used for spreading “news labeled propaganda.” And it’s on both sides of the fence now. It’s sad really, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon because of the money involved and power over peoples minds.

On a side note, seeing Roger Ailes and Bill Oreilly get shitcanned made me feel quite joyful.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 14, 2018)

Futurdreamz said:


> It's not really possible to have a fully "intellectually honest" debate on topics such as this - and it's a complete waste of time.


Yes it is certainly possible. I do it all the time with educated conservatives.



> We're not discussing simple topics like who's pig is going to win the race at the local fair, but great big global topics where there are people who's sole job is to understand the topic.


This is exactly why we need to be intellectually honest.



> All we have to debate with is third-hand accounts of what happened that may or may not be inaccurate and missing key details.


This is also false. You yourself cited that Snopes article that uses scientific data to support it's claim that far-right violence has been more damaging that far-left violence.
Scientific data is in no way "third-hand".
Video evidence is also not "third-hand", which is a very good thing as it's increasingly more available. For example, I wouldn't have been able to disprove that other poster's claim that the white supremacist who ran over 20 protesters did so out of fear without video evidence.



> It's third-hand, but the volume of it is so overwhelming that we end up picking and choosing what we know and accept based on our opinion, so we now are trying to have a debate when only having about half the facts.


What are the other facts you want to bring up? I don't feel overwhelmed at all. You have only brought up one piece of evidence in this whole discussion.



> The end result is not a benifical debate where a conclusion is reached and action is taken on that conclusion


what do you think a beneficial debate would look like?
One where everyone just says what they feel is true without anything to back it up?

Conclusions should be drawn from evidence (i.e. from studying the real world), not the other way around. This is how I have come to my conclusions which is why I can back everything up with evidence.



> leading to zero benefit to ever admit you are wrong and infinite incentive to find a way to explain that you are still right.


I would certainly concede to being wrong. I am concerned with truth, not being right. 
For example, I used to think Antifa were just as bad as the far right extremists, but I did my homework and realized that that is not the case.
Almost everything I believe to be true about the world came about from recognizing that I was wrong about an unfounded belief I previously had.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 14, 2018)

Now the Wall Street Journal and President Trump are bickering over whether he said “I_ probably have a good relationship with Kim Jung Un,” which WSJ claims to be the case, or, “[I’d] probably have a good relationship with Kim Jung Un” in their latest interview.
Here’s the audio...
https://mobile.twitter.com/WSJ/status/952404617261961216/video/1
Honestly I heard “I’d.” But, this certainly ties into your point and this thread _

_@Xzi_


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Now the Wall Street Journal and President Trump are bickering over whether he said “I_ probably have a good relationship with Kim Jung Un,” which WSJ claims to be the case, or, “[I’d] probably have a good relationship with Kim Jung Un in their latest interview.
> Here’s the audio...
> https://mobile.twitter.com/WSJ/status/952404617261961216/video/1
> Honestly I heard “I’d.” But, this certainly ties into your point and this thread _
> ...


If it was "I'd," it would've been followed by an "if" statement, which it was not.  WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, they're not out to intentionally smear Trump with false stories.  Matter of fact, published stories tend to disappear when they're too critical of Trump.

The audio is even worse than I expected.  He slowly pronounces Kim, Jong, and Un as if they're three seperate names.  Like he's reading it and can't recall the person behind the name.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 14, 2018)

I don't have any doubt that he said "I'd". see if you can claim to mishear you can try twist a statement, I cant remember the story but there was another story a year or so ago where news outlets where just running with a story saying someone said one thing and again it was clear to most that they were misquoting, and people jump to the ....no maybe he did say they are all scum we cant possibly know, even though he has cleared it up, lets just keep going with this as its a good way of smearing them based on a questionable "miss-hearing" of a statement

even if someone I disagree with made a statement and it was kinda unclear but if you slow the speed down and hold you head under water it sounds like he said some racial slur, I would mock anyone trying to encourage stupid stories to prove a fake point, go with your strongest argument not silly childish "oooohhhh maybe he said poopy"


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> I don't have any doubt that he said "I'd".


You'd have to be hearing what you want to hear and not what he actually said, then.  "I'd *like to believe *I *can *have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un" makes sense as a sentence, but that's not what he said, he didn't use any qualifying words like that.  Trump's next sentence was, "I have great relationships with a lot of people."  So even if it was "I'd," that still sounds dementia-esque in context: "*I'd *have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un _(if/but?)_.  I have great relationships with a lot of people."

I didn't hear even the slightest "d" sound in the audio clip, either, so I'm not sure where you're getting this.  They released it because it verifies their story, and the only time Trump cares about something this much is when he's lying about it.


----------



## GreatCrippler (Jan 14, 2018)

Comparing the current state of journalism to any other era in history (Even recent history) is not possible. The world is not the same one it was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. We are all spoiled due to the ability to immediately find 200,000 views that agree completely with anything we believe, and 200,000 more that say you are a moron for not seeing it the exact opposite way. Modern media is not specifically better or worse than it used to be. It's just different.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> *You'd have to be hearing what you want to hear and not what he actually said*


Listen very closely. Turn your headphones up. The "d" in "and" is present at the end of "I", which means it's "I'd." I'm chalking this up to the static from the microphone regarding what WSJ put there for subtitles, but when you focus on the subtitles of course you're going to hear/not hear subtle shit. I think that represents the media as a whole pretty well though -- when you just listen to exclusively what people tell you and don't listen for yourself, you end up missing important shit.

I'd break it down in Audacity but I doubt you'd do anything but dismiss it since it goes against your misconceptions about Trump's dementia.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You'd have to be hearing what you want to hear and not what he actually said, then.  "I'd *like to believe *I have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un" makes sense as a sentence, but that's not what he said, he didn't use any qualifying words like that.  Trump's next sentence was, "I have great relationships with a lot of people."  So even if it was "I'd," that still sounds dementia-esque in context: "*I'd *have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un _(if/but?)_.  I have great relationships with a lot of people."
> 
> I didn't hear even the slightest "d" sound in the audio clip, either, so I'm not sure where you're getting this.


IMO I clearly hear "I'd", and tbh this is the pretty childish nonsense that makes people look like idiots, OHHH HE SAID A WORD WRONG!!!!! BUZINGA!!!! we got him now gooiiisssss


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 14, 2018)

GreatCrippler said:


> Comparing the current state of journalism to any other era in history (Even recent history) is not possible. The world is not the same one it was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. We are all spoiled due to the ability to immediately find 200,000 views that agree completely with anything we believe, and 200,000 more that say you are a moron for not seeing it the exact opposite way. Modern media is not specifically better or worse than it used to be. It's just different.


What are you talking about? You can objectively discern standards in journalism, their rise and their decline, in comparison to other time periods and their respective standards. You're basically saying "the time was different and so were the people so you can't compare standards" which isn't really an argument. You haven't demonstrated *why* they can't be compared. Comparisons require differences, which is what you compare.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Listen very closely. Turn your headphones up. The "d" in "and" is present at the end of "I", which means it's "I'd." I'm chalking this up to the static from the microphone regarding what WSJ put there for subtitles, but when you focus on the subtitles of course you're going to hear/not hear subtle shit. I think that represents the media as a whole pretty well though -- when you just listen to exclusively what people tell you and don't listen for yourself, you end up missing important shit.


Okay, then read the rest of what I said and realize that quote is still retarded with "I'd."  Time to impeach on the 25th.  Well, it would be if Pence wasn't just a soulless mannequin.

And now we can check right-wing owned media off the list as sources you'll find acceptable/credible.  That leaves...zero sources you'll find credible when reporting something negative against Trump.  I'm starting to sense a pattern.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Okay, then read the rest of what I said and realize that quote is still retarded with "I'd."


Snipping the rest of your post since it's just some incoherent rant. Great job comparing a misquote to the mentally handicapped. Reported.

Anyways, the lack of an if-statement following it does not invalidate his comment. I can't believe society's standards have fallen so damn low that they can't figure out with current events someone saying "i'd probably have a good relationship with X" is dependent upon the current events without something like that being explicitly subtitled and explained to them.

The 'd' is there mate.


----------



## GreatCrippler (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> What are you talking about? You can objectively discern standards in journalism, their rise and their decline, in comparison to other time periods and their respective standards. You're basically saying "the time was different and so were the people so you can't compare standards" which isn't really an argument. You haven't demonstrated *why* they can't be compared. Comparisons require differences, which is what you compare.



It's all about resources. Modern journalists do no function the way that a journalist in the past would have. You can't fact-check on google 20 years before it existed. You can't see 20 streams from different angles on the President in 4K when a single Analog camera was used to film him. It's like dragging an IBM tech from 1985 in to 2018 and saying "troubleshoot Windows 10 for me would ya?" It's a completely different job now than it was then. Technology alone makes that true, and that doesn't even take into account changing social climates, and relative beliefs of both major parties that are typically the topics of these "fake news" stories.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Snipping the rest of your post since it's just some incoherent rant. Great job comparing a misquote to the mentally handicapped. Reported.


Nice attempt at concern trolling.  Not reported because I'm not a whiny child.



MaverickWellington said:


> Anyways, the lack of an if-statement following it does not invalidate his comment. I can't believe society's standards have fallen so damn low that they can't figure out with current events someone saying "i'd probably have a good relationship with X" is dependent upon the current events without something like that being explicitly subtitled and explained to them.
> 
> The 'd' is there mate.


I'm willing to accept the "d" was there, if you're willing to accept that then sounds like he trailed off to a different thought without completing that one first.  Which still sounds like the early stages of what my grandma's dementia was like.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 14, 2018)

GreatCrippler said:


> It's all about resources. Modern journalists do no function the way that a journalist in the past would have. You can't fact-check on google 20 years before it existed. You can't see 20 streams from different angles on the President in 4K when a single Analog camera was used to film him. It's like dragging an IBM tech from 1985 in to 2018 and saying "troubleshoot Windows 10 for me would ya?" It's a completely different job now than it was then. Technology alone makes that true, and that doesn't even take into account changing social climates, and relative beliefs of both major parties that are typically the topics of these "fake news" stories.


"Hey, these things happened. Write about them."
"Hey, give us your opinion on this. Write about it."
"Hey, study this, report on it."

"LOOK ITS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT JOB OKAY!!!"

So what if the resources changed? Construction work isn't suddenly not construction work because the tools, or materials have changed. The same people get the same training and education to do the same kind of work. To say you can't compare standards because the resources have changed is not a fair argument. In fact it's a counter-productive argument. The very fact that it's different gives proof that it can be compared and you can see what one side is doing better, or worse in comparison.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> I'm willing to accept the "d" was there, if you're willing to accept that then sounds like he trailed off to a different thought without completing that one first.  Which still sounds like the early stages of what my grandma's dementia was like.


I have the strangest feeling that you're going to be on your death bed and still screeching to your family about Trump's dementia or something irrelevant like that. You don't seem all that concerned about the numerous times Obama or any other president stuttered a fuck ton without their teleprompter. This sounds like the definition of a reach.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 14, 2018)

I would say the biggest change is that now many reporters act with impunity, the reputation of the media is in the crapper anyway, so when everyone expects you to write dog crap articles why would an employer care to get rid of idiots who get caught out writing crap.....infact its better for the media to write clickbait BS to try keep their relevance, I see MSM as nothing more than well funded fan blogs for either side of the argument, both sides do the same stuff and both sides try to put on the blinders to see/hear what they want to see/hear


----------



## GreatCrippler (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> "Hey, these things happened. Write about them."
> "Hey, give us your opinion on this. Write about it."
> "Hey, study this, report on it."
> 
> ...



You're over simplifying it. A forklift driver from 30 year ago couldn't function a modern lift. Modern cranes have computers in them. It's still labeled as the same job, but it is not done the same way. You could not hop online in 1985 and find 20 guys on GBAtemp to argue with you, and 20 more to think you're a genius. Times change, people change, industries change. You cannot compare the past to the present equally and expect direct comparisons. How much info on any given news story can you find from your phone right now? 10 years ago? 20?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I have the strangest feeling that you're going to be on your death bed and still screeching to your family about Trump's dementia or something irrelevant like that. You don't seem all that concerned about the numerous times Obama or any other president stuttered a fuck ton without their teleprompter. This sounds like the definition of a reach.


You think he'd be screaming "shithole countries" in front of Democrats who can verify it if he wasn't starting to slip?  Then there was that whole "clean DACA bill" thing that he almost accepted just because it had the word "clean" in front.  It was the same bill.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/ne4qq7/trump-randomly-agrees-to-a-clean-daca-bill

Now, Trump hasn't been the brightest guy from the start of his campaign, but you have to admit the gaffes are getting more frequent if nothing else.  This is way worse than GWB, let alone Obama.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 14, 2018)

"hey bro would you be agreeable to a clean version of this bill?"
"yeah sure"
"GUYS TRUMP IS CONFIRMED DEMENTIA IT'S HAPPENING GUYS I SEE IT"
lmao holy fuck


----------



## Xzi (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> "hey bro would you be agreeable to a clean version of this bill?"
> "yeah sure"
> "GUYS TRUMP IS CONFIRMED DEMENTIA IT'S HAPPENING GUYS I SEE IT"
> lmao holy fuck


Yeah just childishly paraphrase and ignore my other comments because you have no valid counter-argument.  Cute.  Isn't it nap time yet?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 14, 2018)

GreatCrippler said:


> You're over simplifying it. A forklift driver from 30 year ago couldn't function a modern lift. Modern cranes have computers in them. It's still labeled as the same job, but it is not done the same way. You could not hop online in 1985 and find 20 guys on GBAtemp to argue with you, and 20 more to think you're a genius. Times change, people change, industries change. You cannot compare the past to the present equally and expect direct comparisons. How much info on any given news story can you find from your phone right now? 10 years ago? 20?


But a forklift and writing a journalism piece are incomparable. After all, they're two different jobs. That's what you've said in your own words. No one is saying there are "direct comparisons" here and you're the only person who's been arguing against them. What I'm saying is that standards and journalistic integrity have clearly begun to fall.


----------



## GreatCrippler (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> But a forklift and writing a journalism piece are incomparable. After all, they're two different jobs. That's what you've said in your own words. No one is saying there are "direct comparisons" here and you're the only person who's been arguing against them. What I'm saying is that standards and journalistic integrity have clearly begun to fall.



And I am saying only because it's a different job where people are held to different standards than in the past. Integrity is easy to maintain when people respect, your words, and your job, and see you on TV for 5 minutes a day. It's a lot harder with a thankless job that anyone at all can fact check and argue with you on, and can now know what you're doing 24/7 thanks to the internet. I wasn't comparing Construction to journalism. I was comparing any job, and its abilities to perform, or "integrity" that goes with it. Those things are in constant flux. "Kids these days have no respect." "Young people have no integrity" "Ah, the good ol days!" These statements are all a matter of seeing the past for more than it was, and it is said in every generation.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 14, 2018)

GreatCrippler said:


> And I am saying only because it's a different job where people are held to different standards than in the past. Integrity is easy to maintain when people respect, your words, and your job, and see you on TV for 5 minutes a day. It's a lot harder with a thankless job that anyone at all can fact check and argue with you on, and can now know what you're doing 24/7 thanks to the internet. I wasn't comparing Construction to journalism. I was comparing any job, and its abilities to perform, or "integrity" that goes with it. Those things are in constant flux. "Kids these days have no respect." "Young people have no integrity" "Ah, the good ol days!" These statements are all a matter of seeing the past for more than it was, and it is said in every generation.


If a journalism site publishes some shit that wouldn't even be allowed on a tabloid, and you look and find that didn't happen as often in the past as it does now, congrats, that's a comparison to be made. You're being as obtuse as possible to shield journalism from criticism and it isn't working.


----------



## GreatCrippler (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> If a journalism site publishes some shit that wouldn't even be allowed on a tabloid, and you look and find that didn't happen as often in the past as it does now, congrats, that's a comparison to be made. You're being as obtuse as possible to shield journalism from criticism and it isn't working.



As opposed to those who had on the front page of the Newspaper that Truman had lost the presidency? It's not obtuse to see a finite market that was difficult to do, turn into something that is over-saturated and any desk jockey with a $20 phone can fake. Journalistic integrity being crap, and fake news being reported are not new. They are just easier to find, and there is a much larger sample size. The "decline" in morals and standards is all just a matter of having a lot more information thrown at us that happens to conflict.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 14, 2018)

no he does have a point, journalism is awash with 2 bit hacks, and unfortunately idiots buy into stories from random nobodies because they got an unpaid internship at a once reputable newspaper

journalist used to be a skilled profession, now its a monkey with a typewriter job because they only care about quantity over quality....as is the way of the internet


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 14, 2018)

GreatCrippler said:


> As opposed to those who had on the front page of the Newspaper that Truman had lost the presidency? It's not obtuse to see a finite market that was difficult to do, turn into something that is over-saturated and any desk jockey with a $20 phone can fake. Journalistic integrity being crap, and fake news being reported are not new. They are just easier to find, and there is a much larger sample size. The "decline" in morals and standards is all just a matter of having a lot more information thrown at us that happens to conflict.


So if you admit they are easier to find, and that there are more examples of it being low quality, how exactly is that incomparable? It sounds like you don't understand what you're arguing because every argument you make keeps going against your point.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> So if you admit they are easier to find, and that there are more examples of it being low quality, how exactly is that incomparable? It sounds like you don't understand what you're arguing because every argument you make keeps going against your point.


your arguing the same point from a different angle, you say journalism is worse, his argument is that it was always bad, it just used to be that the idiots wouldn't get any exposure.....both statements are kinda true, its just the semantics of it


----------



## GreatCrippler (Jan 14, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> So if you admit they are easier to find, and that there are more examples of it being low quality, how exactly is that incomparable? It sounds like you don't understand what you're arguing because every argument you make keeps going against your point.



LoL, No, it makes my argument for me. Sorry you don't see it, but I am pretty sure that arguing with you is not going to accomplish a thing. You are stuck with what you believe, and don't seem open to anyone's opinion but your own. That is fine. Everyone has an opinion and a right to be as stubborn about maintaining it as they like. I have no issues with you, or your mindset. I just happen to disagree with you.

EDIT:
@*gamesquest1 *More that saying the modern way of things makes it hard or even impossible to compare the number of good to bad to what used to be. But close enough.  Yes there have always been crap journalists. No I don't know if that percentage is notably higher or lower now than in the past. No one does for sure, thus my points.


----------



## Athlon-pv (Jan 14, 2018)

Chary said:


> ​
> 
> Regardless of your view of the current US President, I have to ask, _what is going on with this country's news/journalism?_
> 
> ...




I'm shocked and appalled that you listed FOX as a news site


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 14, 2018)

Let's all take like five steps back and breathe, this is getting ridiculous

Besides, I hate giving Trump the benefit of the doubt of dementia because that gives him an excuse. The problem isn't dementia as far as I can tell, it's just that he has no idea what the hell he's doing and he's WAY too easily influenced by the morning news cycle


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Let's all take like five steps back and breathe, this is getting ridiculous
> 
> Besides, I hate giving Trump the benefit of the doubt of dementia because that gives him an excuse. The problem isn't dementia as far as I can tell, it's just that he has no idea what the hell he's doing and he's WAY too easily influenced by the morning news cycle


It's both.  Here's Trump wandering away from his limo, which is parked 5-10 feet from the edge of the plane's staircase (footage courtesy of Fox affiliate):


----------



## GhostLatte (Jan 15, 2018)

Not surprised that the left has brought up the presidency of Donald Trump. Your opinion of the current president is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Both American media outlets on the left and right have issues that need to be resolved.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Not surprised that the left has brought up the presidency of Donald Trump. Your opinion of the current president is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Both American media outlets on the left and right have issues that need to be resolved.


The left addresses their criticisms and attempts to adapt, the right denies all issues with their people altogether.  Courtesy of MaverickWellington we know that celebrities shouldn't be president, because they lack the necessary legislative/governing experience.  You'll keep denying anything bad about Trump and blaming his failures on Democrats who control nothing right now.  It doesn't matter, because the mid-terms are coming, and we'll see how the people respond to a party with no sense of of self-responsibility.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jan 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The left addresses their criticisms and attempts to adapt, the right denies all issues with their people altogether.  Courtesy of MaverickWellington we know that celebrities shouldn't be president, because they lack the necessary legislative/governing experience.  You'll keep denying anything bad about Trump and blaming his failures on Democrats who control nothing right now.  It doesn't matter, because the mid-terms are coming, and we'll see how the people respond to a party with no sense of of self-responsibility.


Who said I supported Trump? Just because I don't like liberals, it doesn't make me a conservative.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 15, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Who said I supported Trump? Just because I don't like liberals, it doesn't make me a conservative.


Notice that he name dropped me, he's convinced I'm some alt-right neo nazi because I said I don't support the modern media and it's nonsense. You're really better off ignoring X(na)zi since 95% of his posts are him irrelevantly whining about Trump and then just doing dumb "us vs them" shit towards Republicans.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Let's all take like five steps back and breathe, this is getting ridiculous
> 
> Besides, I hate giving Trump the benefit of the doubt of dementia because that gives him an excuse. The problem isn't dementia as far as I can tell, it's just that he has no idea what the hell he's doing and he's WAY too easily influenced by the morning news cycle


Mate, you just described a huge chunk of the voting age.


----------



## leon315 (Jan 15, 2018)

he even mentioned chineses, who hold 50% of amarican's public debits lol


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Who said I supported Trump? Just because I don't like liberals, it doesn't make me a conservative.


Why would you be an apologist for him otherwise?  Maybe don't discredit sources you haven't even looked into.

It's a circlejerk of confirmation bias when not only is cable news attacked in blanket statements, but now also print/internet articles are questioned in mass.  Anybody perhaps stop to think that Putin might enjoy us questioning every American institution?



MaverickWellington said:


> Notice that he name dropped me


I purposefully didn't @ you to try and avoid your whining, but I guess it was inevitable.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jan 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Why would you be an apologist for him otherwise?  Maybe don't discredit sources you haven't even looked into.


Ironic that YOU of all people would say that?


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Ironic that YOU of all people would say that?


How so?  I'll accept anyone citing reasonable sources that aren't extremely tilted in either direction.  Pls no clickbait or ad-filled garbage, either.

FFS, I've cited Murdoch-owned WSJ and a Fox affiliate in this thread alone.  There's nobody who is qualified to cover Trump "the right way" according to some people.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jan 15, 2018)

I'll add this to the discussion:
News is heavily influenced by politics. Politicians can greatly benefit or be greatly harmed by press releases about them, their activities, or otherwise. At a certain level, it becomes a big game of PR. Your enemies might leak incriminating details to the press, or a press member might blackmail a reporter into pursuing a certain slant. Establishment politics is greatly tied to the large players in the press and entertainment world. Observe Trump's relationship with Murdoch or Ailes (while he was alive), or even Bannon (before their current rift), and see that the media organizations those men own staunchly support Trump's actions, and are used as a political front for him, or a kind of alternate PR group. If we back up to Obama's days, observe his relationship with Soros and Media Matters, among other groups. If you wanna know what's up with the media in this country, look to the political world. One of the reasons the press seems so whacko nowadays is because the presidency is whacko, too. Trump made a big splash in politics that rocked all of Washington, and thus, rocked the media.

As with everything, the answer to a large question like, "What's up with the media?" is often, "There's a confluence of factors." Here I'm showing just one of the factors at play that I don't see talked about as much in this thread.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2018)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> I'll add this to the discussion:
> News is heavily influenced by politics. Politicians can greatly benefit or be greatly harmed by press releases about them, their activities, or otherwise. At a certain level, it becomes a big game of PR. Your enemies might leak incriminating details to the press, or a press member might blackmail a reporter into pursuing a certain slant. Establishment politics is greatly tied to the large players in the press and entertainment world. Observe Trump's relationship with Murdoch or Ailes (while he was alive), or even Bannon (before their current rift), and see that the media organizations those men own staunchly support Trump's actions, and are used as a political front for him, or a kind of alternate PR group. If we back up to Obama's days, observe his relationship with Soros and Media Matters, among other groups. If you wanna know what's up with the media in this country, look to the political world. One of the reasons the press seems so whacko nowadays is because the presidency is whacko, too. Trump made a big splash in politics that rocked all of Washington, and thus, rocked the media.
> 
> As with everything, the answer to a large question like, "What's up with the media?" is often, "There's a confluence of factors." Here I'm showing just one of the factors at play that I don't see talked about as much in this thread.


Indeed, we see a lot of our society reflected back to us in our media, with social networking platforms like twitter and bookface amplifying that to an all-time high.  Fox News and CNN viewers are in their own bubbles for the most part, with maybe two respectable journalists on each.  The rest is just feeding them their own opinions on a 24-hour cycle.


----------



## RustInPeace (Jan 15, 2018)

The Trump thing comes off as TMZ reporting since he's a celebrity, and every word he says is like fuel for the fire, and the people reporting on that traded in paparazzi cameras for keyboards (I was going to say pen and paper but that's old news). That's honestly not surprising, and has been going on for a while. The "shithole" thing risks being personally affecting to me. I'm not Haitian, but my birth country, Dominican Republic are neighbors to Haiti, so I'm in a really weird state whether I should be more angry at Trump because he's hitting somewhat close to home.

I was expecting more of a discussion on the exposes to celebrities and Hollywood power men over sexual assault. That's been a more recent trend, as said already, Trump bait has been going on for almost 2 years. I don't know, some shred of journalistic integrity still exists when those kind of bombshells are dropped, and it features people investigating and doing their job, not focused on Trump and potential celebrity Presidential candidates. More of this happens and pretty soon the only male actors in Hollywood will be Tom Hanks, Kurt Russell, and Keanu Reeves.

I never expected to post in this section, I was part of a forum that used to have a politics section and I read horror stories about how that happened. It bled over to the General Discussion and threads would get locked down as they bled into politics. Hell, I was a mod there and had to lock down one some time in 2013. A certain person protested this hard core, and it hurt me emotionally and spun the wheels to get out of that Hell and end up here. I won't repeat that here, so I'll just comment and run. I never got to respond to the shithole thing anywhere else and I felt like doing it.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 15, 2018)

RustInPeace said:


> The "shithole" thing risks being personally affecting to me.


Unfortunately it takes being personally affected for many people to stand up and take notice.  Though I do work at a dispensary and Jeff Sessions is a continuous threat to my well-being, I'm concerned more for my country and other Americans than I am for myself.  My state has taken pretty good care of me thankfully.


----------



## Noctosphere (Jan 15, 2018)

all what I can say is that "FAKE NEWS" has become a popular meme


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 15, 2018)

GhostLatte said:


> Not surprised that the left has brought up the presidency of Donald Trump. Your opinion of the current president is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Both American media outlets on the left and right have issues that need to be resolved.



OP brought up Trump in the very first post in this thread...



MaverickWellington said:


> "hey bro would you be agreeable to a clean version of this bill?"
> "yeah sure"
> "GUYS TRUMP IS CONFIRMED DEMENTIA IT'S HAPPENING GUYS I SEE IT"
> lmao holy fuck



Who is saying this?



Noctosphere said:


> all what I can say is that "FAKE NEWS" has become a popular meme



Truest thing to be said in this entire thread


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 15, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> he's convinced I'm some alt-right neo nazi



Mate if he really thought you were a nazi he would be worshipping you like the lord almighty


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 15, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Mate if he really thought you were a nazi he would be worshipping you like the lord almighty


Why do you say that


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 15, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Mate if he really thought you were a nazi he would be worshipping you like the lord almighty


Given his praise of Hitler in comparison to Trump I think you may just be right.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 15, 2018)

pfft. Everyone knows a Hitler is needed for an Anarchistic Utopia to function. Otherwise there's too many different opinions and moral standards in conflict.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 15, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> OP brought up Trump in the very first post in this thread...


Not necessarily, OP brought up news about trump but the topic was about how sensationalist and lacking in journalistic integrity it was. Instead of reporting it as news, it reads more like a heavily opinionated blog. Naturally, the manchildren had to turn this into their screech zone to bitch about Trump for the umpteenth time.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Jan 15, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Not necessarily, OP brought up news about trump but the topic was about how sensationalist and lacking in journalistic integrity it was. Instead of reporting it as news, it reads more like a heavily opinionated blog. Naturally, the manchildren had to turn this into their screech zone to bitch about Trump for the umpteenth time.


Which is ironic, since one of the things we were originally discussing what how American Journalism is getting everyone all riled up to the point that a rational debate is pretty much impossible.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 15, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Not necessarily, OP brought up news about trump but the topic was about how sensationalist and lacking in journalistic integrity it was. Instead of reporting it as news, it reads more like a heavily opinionated blog. Naturally, the manchildren had to turn this into their screech zone to bitch about Trump for the umpteenth time.



But using Trump as an example makes him a part of the conversation as the reporting on him is the evidence given to show that journalism is in the shitter.

Like if we're on some gamergate shit and Person A says: "gaming journalism is in the trash; Bungie makes all these great games that get terrible reviews"

And Person B responds with: "I don't agree with your claim about gaming journalism. Bungie deserves the reviews they got: Halo 5 had terrible graphics compared to its peers, it had buggy multiplayer, and didn't innovate from it's predecessors. Halo Wars 3 had terrible controls and the soundtrack was trash, etc."

Or if Person B said: "I agree with you that gaming journalism is the shitter but those Halo games got the scores they deserved because of X,Y, and Z"

How can you say that Person B is the one who brought up Bungie? If you don't agree with Person A's conclusion or if you just don't agree with their example, you need to discuss the example to explain your position.

(I haven't played a Bungie game since Halo 3, I just made those examples up. Sorry halo friends.)


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 15, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> But using Trump as an example makes him a part of the conversation as the reporting on him is the evidence given to show that journalism is in the shitter.
> 
> Like if we're on some gamergate shit and Person A says: "gaming journalism is in the trash; Bungie makes all these great games that get terrible reviews"
> 
> ...


Entirely wrong. First and foremost, the discussion was never about Trump, it was about a method of reporting. Not per se about political journalism as a whole, but sensationalist reporting that's full of "Chicken Little Syndrome" as someone nicely put it in this thread. Forgot who, but props to ya for that term man.

So if the discussion were, say, about journalism sites that were letting the PR company write their articles for them, and the article in question were about Halo, if someone ran in the thread and started flinging shit about Halo instead of the problem at hand, which is poor journalism, they're being an idiot. You're using mental gymnastics to justify someone derailing a thread about sensationalist journalism and how it's a problem or people's opinions on it into their 45,128th thread where they bitch and moan about Trump like he gave him the world's largest anal hemorrhage.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 15, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Entirely wrong. First and foremost, the discussion was never about Trump, it was about a method of reporting. Not per se about political journalism as a whole, but sensationalist reporting that's full of "Chicken Little Syndrome" as someone nicely put it in this thread. Forgot who, but props to ya for that term man.
> 
> So if the discussion were, say, about journalism sites that were letting the PR company write their articles for them, and the article in question were about Halo, if someone ran in the thread and started flinging shit about Halo instead of the problem at hand, which is poor journalism, they're being an idiot. You're using mental gymnastics to justify someone derailing a thread about sensationalist journalism and how it's a problem or people's opinions on it into their 45,128th thread where they bitch and moan about Trump like he gave him the world's largest anal hemorrhage.



You're assuming that everyone in the thread agrees that journalism is in the shitter which is obviously not the case. I presume you are referring the Xzi as being the person who brought up Trump, but they are doing so to try justify their disagreement to OP's conclusion. 

If you don't agree with OP's conclusion, the next logical step is to refute the evidence given to support that conclusion.

In other words, if you don't agree that journalism is poor, you need to refute the example used to justify the claim of journalism being poor.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 15, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> You're assuming that everyone in the thread agrees that journalism is in the shitter which is obviously not the case. I presume you are referring the Xzi as being the person who brought up Trump, but they are doing so to try justify their disagreement to OP's conclusion.
> 
> If you don't agree with OP's conclusion, the next logical step is to refute the evidence given to support that conclusion.
> 
> In other words, if you don't agree that journalism is poor, you need to refute the example used to justify the claim of journalism being poor.


I'm not assuming anything of the sort. You're making assumptions yourself in such a regard. OP literally opens with the line, "Regardless of your thoughts on the current US president, what the hell is going on with journalism?"

This isn't the place to cry about Trump and praise Bernie like every other mindless bernout. It's a place to discuss the status of journalism. The thread didn't open about trump, only about a piece that was about him, but Trump was not the focus in the OP. If people want to make their dedicated crying station for Trump, they should make a thread about it rather than hijacking threads into it.






The first post in the thread that focuses on Trump and not journalism itself does not even attempt to refute the statement about sensationalism and how it's started to plague journalism. It's literally just him whining about the US's current state and Trump. So, I'm gonna chalk this up to more "wahh let me cry about trump!!!" than "it's connecting it to politics, don't you see!?"


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 16, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> I'm not assuming anything of the sort. You're making assumptions yourself in such a regard.



How so? How can you say that when I'm one of the people who criticized OP's footing? I posted early in the thread that one of the examples they gave did not support their conclusion.



> The first post in the thread that focuses on Trump and not journalism itself does not even attempt to refute the statement about sensationalism and how it's started to plague journalism. It's literally just him whining about the US's current state and Trump. So, I'm gonna chalk this up to more "wahh let me cry about trump!!!" than "it's connecting it topolitics, don't you see!?"



What are you talking about dawg? Xzi's post is about Trump's media coverage. They don't agree with OP's conclusion that the coverage is sensationalist. If you want to be in an echo chamber you can go to the /r/the_donald where they censor any dissenting opinions. 



> The first post in the thread that focuses on Trump and not journalism itself [...]





> "Journalism did not bring us to these new lows, they're only following the lows of Trump's daily life"


How can you say that this is not about journalism???

Further, "journalism itself" doesn't exist. Journalists report on subjects. You cannot separate these two things.

And again, OP brought up Trump as a subject of reporting we can use to draw the conclusion that the reporting is bad. If you don't agree that the reporting is bad, what would be a better way refute OP's conclusion?



> This isn't the place to cry about Trump and praise Bernie like every other mindless bernout.


please cut it out with the ad hominem attacks. You're smarter than that. Bernie was mentioned once and was never responded to. Chill out.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jan 16, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> How so? How can you say that when I'm one of the people who criticized OP's footing? I posted early in the thread that one of the examples they gave did not support their conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Amazing that you pick out the singular line in the post that mentions journalism and write the entire post off as if it's solely about it. I don't know if you're doing this intentionally or not at this point but regardless it's getting pathetic.

The OP was not about the focus on Trump, it was just about how stupid the media has become. Xzi's post was to whine about our "status as world leader" which isn't even correct to begin with since we are still a world leader, regardless of the fact that we have a man some people dislike as president.

You're going to some impressive lengths in mental gymnastics here, I'll give you that. They aren't making your argument stronger though, just dumber.

A better way to refute the claim that the media has become entirely sensationalist (or mostly) is to bring up news sources that are *not* sensationalist, which several other people in the thread have brought up, specifically the ones about local news, or other sites, while pointing out the flawed sites. Notice how I have not had any problem with these posts. This is how you make an argument. Bitching about Trump is not. Mental gymnastics centered around "w-well the post *said* journalism in it, s-so it's about journalism!!!" is also not an argument.

I'm not going to derail the topic further with you on this. You're clearly not capable of understanding the issue and where it lies as well as where the responsibility of it does. I'm not going to encourage this further.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 16, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Amazing that you pick out the singular line in the post that mentions journalism and write the entire post off as if it's solely about it. I don't know if you're doing this intentionally or not at this point but regardless it's getting pathetic.



Bruh their whole post was about journalism.


> "Trump is the biggest news since Nixon, it's not surprising that *they *mostly focus on him"


^I wonder who Xzi is referring to with "*they*"? can't be journalists because apparently the only way to reference them is to say "journalist", even in a thread about journalism.


> "I wish *they *would vary it up more, sure, but it is important to understand the damage he's doing both at home and on the world stage."


^Again, the subject of this next sentence is the media. Xzi then goes on to try and justify the media coverage with context


> "Say what you want about Obama, but the fact of the matter is that the US was still a world leader while he was in office. Now the US is at the back of the short bus."


and now, back to explicitly talking about journalists:


> "*Journalism *did not bring us these new lows, *they're *only following the lows of Trump's daily life.


And for the conclusion. I know this is scary because Xzi is not saying "journalists" or "the media" in every sentence but I hopefully we can connect the preceding sentence with the following sentence, you know, like a a paragraph:


> "To some extent we get dragged down into the mud with his lows [by who??? can't be journalists...], but that's to be expected since he's president."





> The OP was not about the focus on Trump, *it was just about how stupid the media has become*.


EXACTLY, my point is that not everyone agrees that the media has become stupid!
It's still well within the bounds of the conversation to disagree with the original premise. Otherwise it's just an echochamber of people who all think the media has become stupid and ideas aren't challenged.

If I make a thread about how terrible Democrats are, and use Hillary Clinton as an example of Democrats being terrible, it is acceptable and actually healthy for the discourse for someone to come in and say "well actually Hillary did X,Y, and Z which were good so I don't agree that Democrats are bad"
(I don't know what you could put in for X,Y, and Z but just take it as an example)



> A better way to refute the claim that the media has become entirely sensationalist (or mostly) is to bring up news sources that are *not* sensationalist


This STILL requires agreement on who IS sensationalist. Xzi made it clear that they don't believe there be a problem with the mainstream media, so in order for them to follow this advice, they would just bring up news sources like CNN which you believe to be sensationalistic.

This is our sticking point dawg. Not everyone agrees with OP's conclusion.

Like, if I started the same exact thread, but said whatever news source(s) you like is sensationalist, you would be very much justified in saying that they're not sensationalistic and do good journalism.



> Mental gymnastics centered around "w-well the post *said* journalism in it, s-so it's about journalism!!!" isalsonotanargument.


No, it absolutely is an argument. Your claim was that Xzi's post was not about journalism. Xzi making the paragraph you have issue with primarily focused on the media directly refutes that claim.



> I'm not going to encourage this further.


Yes daddy.


----------

