1. Boesy

    OP Boesy GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2020
    Messages:
    330
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    It's kind of annoying that tons of people and media outlets use this term to "expose" news they may think are fake (or they just say because they disagree with). False news have always existed and there's a quote that perfectly leaves one speechless:

    [​IMG]
    I don't remember who said this quote, but time and time again the media sure loves to twist the truth to include some bits to make it even "better" or spicy. All in all, Trump just blurred the lines even more by bringing it up although it wasn't his fault.
     
  2. AmandaRose

    AmandaRose Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    6,200
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    The quote was by Mark Twain.
     
  3. FGFlann

    FGFlann GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2015
    Messages:
    440
    Country:
    Sensationalized news irritates me to no end. It's the worst thing to have happened to us socially. When every story is a drama and every office has their political bent, it's no wonder we're becoming so polarized.

    The worst part of all is that straight news just doesn't sell.
     
    CallmeBerto likes this.
  4. emigre

    emigre Recovering weeaboo
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,261
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    What is the purpose of this thread? Unless you're very naive, I would hope most adults appreciate bias and increasingly more so irresponsible misleading journalism. And people have been slagging it off for years.

    My favourite quote on the media is by Nye Bevan, he once described the British press as being 'the most prostituted press in the world.' To put this into context I understand he said this in the 1940s.
     
  5. Boesy

    OP Boesy GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2020
    Messages:
    330
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    It's that as I mentioned some adults genuinely use "take news" as their defense when it's not even the case, but it's not the only label that people use to put down others. Almost as if words have lost their true meaning.
     
  6. IncredulousP

    IncredulousP GBAtemp's Resident Bastard
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    544
    Country:
    United States
    fake news
     
    CallmeBerto likes this.
  7. Chary

    Chary Never sleeps.
    Senior Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    8,596
    Country:
    United States
    I do think Trump helped push people's awareness towards media outlets distributing false facts or sensationalist headlines, but he himself unintentionally also pushed people towards that realization as well, with his own statements that sometimes came without any verification or facts to back it up.

    Now it's just the equivalent of calling someone a nazi. "I disagree with it, so it's fake news!" A boogeyman term so that people don't have to deal with facts that may go against their worldview. "It's all fake, I don't care what you say, I'm always right".

    And that cheapens the entire argument of the media being biased, or trying to serve a particular demographic's views, or creating sensationalist headlines/hyperbole for the sake of getting hits/sales. But even so, it's not something that'll go away. Much as people claim they hate that type of news, it's been around for longer than any of us have been alive, and it is, at the end of the day, what sells. Especially in this hyper-aggressive culture of wanting to feel the self-satisfaction of being better than others, or just seeing so much media in a day, that the only ones that catch your attention are ones that are designed to cause arguments or enrage.
     
    Nightwish likes this.
  8. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,568
    Country:
    Laos
    Take a Trump is a victim stance.
    Conflate that with politics.
    Use a square black and white meme.
    Dont look up who authored a quote.
    Lie that he was the prototypical journalist. (He was a journalist at a local paper. Local papers were mostly ad and gossip rags for the benefit of local business communities. (With a few notable exceptions))

    Make this thread about how the media should be more grateful to Trump for bringing them closer to the edge of inexistance. (Riling up public opinion against journalism.)

    Spew something about truth mattering in the process.

    If you know nothing, and you feel something, better resort to post memes, right?
    -

    Here are a few concepts you could look at.

    - Yellow press model as fashioned by Rupert Murdoch
    Relies on the lowest common denominator, is out there to entertain, exploit human attention mechanisms and sell.

    - Click bait journalism model, best (imho) described by Ryan Holiday (Trust Me, I'm Lying)
    Relies on the lowest common denominator, is out there to exploit human attention mechanisms and sell.

    - TV broadcast journalism model
    Based on finding a good image - relying on news paper journalism for the rest.

    - News paper journalism, now with 10x the actuality pressure and -80% of staff. And minus 80% of a cut of total advertising budgets. Those where the guys that formerly had larger editorial staff quotas, and actually people going after stories.

    - News wires, not at all financed through ad money.

    - Social media - not journalism at all - but claiming to be a great broker of stuff you'd love to see. Nowadays gets more than 2/3s of all online ad revenues.

    - Influencer with podcast - joke, sellout (if not at first, eventually (simply because its hard to keep quality constant int the environment they are in, as a one person chop shop - and the ad economy as implemented by facebook and google favors SENSATIONALISM!)
    --

    So what do you want to talk about? How Trump was essential in pointing out a problem, or the deviancy of the journalistic class?

    Both of those are lies.

    If you want to point out that journalistic institution models (f.e. billionaire owned) also influence what is written or shown. Yes, not in the direct way you'd think, but more with company culture, and selection biases in recruitment. The only way around that is to have a healthy ecosystem - where multiple outlets can compete.

    Since the public - even before Trump decided it would be a boon not to pay for journalism anymore - and googles and facebooks 'first person that posts a story gets most eyes' mantra increased speed to the point, where as a journalist - doing journalism is now the least part of your job - you now can reap the benefits of having done everything to destroy public value in that sector.

    Ways around this.

    - Publicly co-funded mass outlets like NPR, or the BBC
    - Research collectives (research now only pays if several outlets pool journalism on bigger projects)
    - Billionaire owners, who have the paper write nothing bad about them and their interests, but at least can finance bigger editorial offices - constantly loosing money, without having to necessarily reduce quality. (Not quite philanthropy, but close)
    - Prescription only models, for certain journalists who fashion themselves experts in a field (more paid stock market advice than anything else).

    Every other form, doesnt seem to work. (Well, the Guardian made it work recently, as one open/prescrition and ad financed liberal outlet. One, for the entire english speaking market. They did it by resorting heavily to clickbait stories, and 'frames' that people liked. Only cut back part of their staff. The issue here is, that this is one of the most famous english speaking newspapers in the world. If that 'just' scales using the old model - goodbye everyone else.. ;) )

    To get anything close to 'constant quality' you need a bunch of people at the same outlet, following something like an ethos.

    This still gives you biases, the same way as a billionaire owner will, but if interests (who sponsers a paper) arent uniform (which they arent, when there are many bigger news outlets around), it also gives you some diversity.

    If you have one to five dudes, working under youtube style advertiser criteria, and google style 'it only pays to be first' pressures, you get anything but journalism. Bloggers suck at this. (More interested in brand creation and maintaining, than research.)

    At the same time - Trump maybe knows two and a half political concepts, and is mostly employed to do the same he did as a spokesperson for the Trump brand, which was owned by banks for quite some while now. He promotes ventures and businesses. The end. He doesnt know jack. He lies. But he also entertains. And if he's not pulling any political strings - the country can be run around him, with him playing some sort of symbolic leader figure that no one in business really cares about. First he sets of an economic battle with china, then he relaxes it. Horray. First he promises for factory jobs to return from china and mexico, then he realizes, that they have already been automated away. Horray. Something, something wall. Fake Media. Horray.

    The biggest part of all of it is open far right propaganda. Which goes like this.

    - we are relatively new as a political fraction.
    - we are relatively extreme in our believes.

    Therefore mainstream media isn't covering us yet. (Changes once you get a little more established).

    - we have our own payed off website outlets (think 'union press', so media outlets that are owned by the same people paying for most of the parties activities).

    We have great idea - we make up highly emotionally catching fear based stories, and tell people mainstream media is withholding that information from them because - they be peddling fake news.

    New coined term explodes in usage. (For example during the european migration crisis. Where societal practices prevented early adequate reporting. (noone wanting to be declared a racist or hurting state interests - public felt in larger groups that reality wasnt reported anymore. Media has to make the term 'their own' because everybody and their uncle is using it. While shouting at them.)

    Also - there is really only one political opinion that is spread by most people on gbatemp, and that is 'how unfair is it, that something Trump - I heard about it in this meme *posts meme*'.

    Which is no political opinion at all.

    Also what Trump does, doesnt matter at all, what he thinks, far, far less so.

    American economy is certainly not doing well because of what he did, but despite of it.

    (If you want to know why - his administration basically gave tax exemptions to the ultra rich, which then didnt manifest itself in increased investments in the US (or the west), the economy is still mostly consumption driven (no new business sectors - just increase consumption spending and tell people that they don't need any money for a house, for old age - thats also growth baby!), which only has limited pull - and everybody still is very excited that some stock market indicators went to new highs (which is where tax breaks went - too much money in the economy, too few investment opportunities for it that would produce real world economic growth, in western economies)). There is a feeling of 'sustained progress' though ('best year ever' in some indicator that means nothing to the average person), that makes everybody kind of happy.)

    So what do you want to talk about? That facebook isn't journalism? Yes, and?

    Sasha Baron Cohan did a rant on a concept similar to yours recently ( h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM ). People basically realize, that the gatekeeper function of conventional media is gone ("pointing out - what matters"), and are utterly confused and angry that common ground was replaced by a multitude of opinion bubbles.

    (This issue:
    )

    At the same time they still complain as if "tha media" would still work their old function, and would be the only thing, that hold away their political godking from being accepted, as a universal god like entity. Now that can only be explained, by them eating political propaganda by the spoonfull.

    "Tha media" can not both simultaneously fail economically, loose all gatekeeper functions, and still be the untrustworthy "kingmaker".

    Also journalism was always a for profit entity. Which means at least from the perspective of the owners, it never was 'first and foremost about the truth'. For journalists - it still always at least partly was. (It was also about getting special access, and not loosing it ('exclusive interview'), and about international networks, partly political, and it was about at least cooperating with the state, if you got larger - to a certain agree - but at least journalism on its own had some power. (The entire mass media concept resolves around 'engineering consent', creating a common narrative). And was paid for by the reader, so that was who you 'worked for' ideally. Now - much less so.

    Journalism working to 'report the truth' maybe was more of a market economy effect. If your paper reported untrue stuff it could be berated and one upped by your competitors, so everyone had an incentive to report 'truly' (ethos formed) as much as not to get called out by competitors. Journalists having a self image as 'facilitators of the truth' (pillar of society) actually was a working side effect for quite some time. Now in the internet age where everyone gets a voice and the means of production, and distribution is handed out by facebook by popularity - that pretty much broke. And if that hadn't done it - more economic pressures on journalists certainly did.

    In the end this means higher market concentration (only a few big papers remaining that 'do' journalism). Which is not ideal. While the general public doesnt think about paying for journalism anymore. And would rather click puppy videos on that insta. (Attention economy - its not as if they'd be bored otherwise - the illusion to be informed for watercooler talk is more than enough or most people.) That function facebook caters to sufficiently. That can be done by some algo - no human needed. That function (commentary) could also be served by some podcaster or radio shock jock. (You dont need journalism for that.)

    Also in the past you had maybe 4-10 ideologies that made up the public narrative for the majority. Now every small small societal entity finds itself on the internet and makes up their own bubble. You cant reflect all of those. Even if all of them think themselves very important. Then selection mostly goes by followercount (popularity) which never is a good indicator for anything - much less something you'd call truth.

    This means "lowest common denominator" - becomes more and more of an ideal image society wide.

    Everything now sounds like a commercial as well, because every company, every small project, every product campaign and every human being, wants to 'optimize' their messaging, and reach a lot of people. Which you theoretically can. This leans into social media giants being marketing companies at their heart and in their finance models.

    So what of that does fake news cover now exactly?
     
    Last edited by notimp, Feb 15, 2020
  9. ghjfdtg

    ghjfdtg GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    575
    Country:
    The only times i use "fake news" is when making jokes or memes. And it's exactly that. A joke taken too seriously.
     
  10. D34DL1N3R

    D34DL1N3R Nephilim
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,430
    Country:
    United States
    One problem is that when Trump cries about fake news, said news is actually true. You may as well create a topic about how even though many hate Trump, he invented the phrase Make America Great Again... which would be every bit of "fake news" as this topic is.
     
    slaphappygamer likes this.
  11. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,568
    Country:
    Laos
    Jokes?

    I would call memes (as used in political messaging) something different.

    https://www.socialmediatoday.com/ne...-use-of-memes-by-political-candidates/572381/

    I've been to established political events where a year after I was there (so, basically I couldnt protest is what I'm saying :) ) 'fun meme creation challenges" were held, to get a leg up in actual election campaigns.

    edit: Here is the link to Trumps "social media summit" (get the disenfranchised into the White House for a day) again: https://gbatemp.net/threads/trump-holds-white-house-event-for-social-influencers.543365/

    Do you still think of them as fun jokes?
     
    Last edited by notimp, Feb 15, 2020
  12. ghjfdtg

    ghjfdtg GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    575
    Country:
    @notimp
    I think you are misunderstanding. I'm making fun of "fake news". Not using it against anyone. And i think anyone who uses it seriously against legit media is a moron and not better than Trump.
     
  13. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,568
    Country:
    Laos
    Wasnt a personal slant. And yes memes are jokes as well. :) But in the political field they are used more 'targeted' nowadays. Of course. Like everything is. :)

    (I was instigating. ;) )
     
    Last edited by notimp, Feb 15, 2020
  14. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    7,415
    Country:
    Belgium
    I just want to remark on this that the quote isn't meant as an excuse to throw objectism out the window but as a means that people enjoy a good story irragardless of whether or not it is true. That's why so many fictional stories exist. And comics. And movies that are "based on" true events (which basically mean that the complexity of real life is reduced in order to make the story more apprehensable). Heck...even jokes throw out actual reality in order to better hit a punchline.


    Pushing people's awareness? No...unfortunately, I think that at best goes for a minority. From what I perceive, it is used as a wall to shield yourself from what you don't want to hear.

    The problem is that reality is a rather messy situation. We are simply unable to perceive every little detail "as it is", so our brain is hardwired to make generalisations. It helps us get by (focussing on something invariably means losing focus of the rest), but has the nasty habit of creating blind spots. And these are known, and (admittedly) sometimes blatantly and agressively used by media who want to push an agenda.

    Example: a car hits a pedestrian. Different newspapers (and self proclaimed news sources on the internet) can report it as follows:
    -pedestrian got hit by car when crossing the street
    -woman driver roadkills a man
    -black driver drives over local resident. May have been on purpose

    All of these messages can be true at the same time, but each paint a very different picture. Does it say something about women's abilities to drive? Should the pedestrian have looked better? And is the skin colors of those involved really a coincidence?

    ...and that's just the surface. News stations have much more power in chosing which articles to give air time, which NOT to air and how to bring it (climate change, for example, is usually brought as a matter of conflicting opinions. By the time it is revealed that one source is unreliable and far in the minority, the story has lost its relevance and the audience believes there isn't a concensus when all real scientists agree on the important parts).

    Which brings us to Donald. In a way, I respect it that you give him some benefit of the doubt, but "<Trump's> statements that sometimes came without any verification" is like saying that "the sun may sometimes rise in the East".

    Media have made a grave error in the 2016 election by giving him way more airtime than allocated, for the very simple reason that it was juicy ("oooh...he insulted THAT senator? That'll make great headlines! :D "). That's his main strength, by the way: play the media. As much as he claims 'false news', all he really wants is push his agenda (heck...when he was acquitted, he couldn't show the world often enough). And he's pretty proactive in that.
    "Oh, he caught me in doing something illegal? Better make sure to ruin their credibility before he gets the word out!".
    The only flaw in this is that sooner or later, truth floats to the surface. And to drown out that he has lied and bullied on top of the original acusation, he has to create a new story that's even more sensational. Which he does. Which is why things are spiraling into ever weirder territories of madness...
     
  15. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Messages:
    623
    Country:
    China
    He may have popularized it among Fox news viewers but it had already been in use on the internet, I think. At least in Germany its equivalent ("lying press") had already been used very frequently during the Ukraine crisis.
     
  16. MikaDubbz

    MikaDubbz GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    782
    Country:
    United States
    That thread title makes it sound like a good thing lol
     
    yuyuyup likes this.
  17. Captain_N

    Captain_N GBAtemp Advanced Maniac
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,746
    Country:
    United States
    Dont yall get that trump tweets and says stupid shit just to troll the media. It keeps him in the news. Hes the biggest troll ever. calling Bernie crazy and calling Biden "sleepy Joe" is classic trolling moves. I'm surprised he just doesn't call Bernie a commie. that would be legit true news. The very fact that trump does not take shit and is a hot head is the reason he got elected. If he acted presidential he would not get elected.
    The guy has been trolling since day one. the dems and the media still are salty he won. Its like a noob loading cheats and still loosing.
     
  18. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,568
    Country:
    Laos
    By whom?

    We have had an entire thread about that already.

    I still maintain the following.

    - Is media all about 'dissecting news and getting to the truth (subjective concept)?' - no its not. First truth is subjective. Second media isnt a single thing (yellow press rag vs more quality orientated). Third, if they get stuff wrong, they are bound to bring corrections (- if someone puts in a complain with the media regulation authority in a specific country). Fourth, access always comes at at cost ('media management' conists of picking the most dumb and most friendly journalists to give interviews to). Fifth there is something like a political orientation. Sixth there are ownership structures. Seventh there are time and money pressures that have only increased in recent years. Eighth their social role is compromised, by media simply mattering less. Nineth the bigger ones are part of the societal status quo, not insane fringe outlets. Go figure. Tenth - 90% of the money in the public communications sector is spent on media management (PR) and message control (PR).

    Now if -

    - There is no truth without a corresponding viewpoint
    - People dont care about corrections at all
    - People dont even know that there are different types of media out there
    - People increasingly don't know where a news article comes from - because they dont click trough from facebook
    - People then also dont make sure to read different media outlets on a single issue - because most of them today cant differentiate between Alex Jones, and the Washington Post, if we are realistic.
    - People dont pay for news anymore

    What are you complaining about?

    That the 'as a journalist, I will write whats true' ethos doesnt solve all problems? How old are you?

    'Lying press during the ukraine crisis'? What was there that could be misunderstood? It was not as easy as 'Putin bad, whatever billionaire President the country had that was pro EU good' - but not very far removed from it. In the end association decrees already signed din't matter much, because Russia intervened militarily - in a way that was not entirely covered by international law, but also wasn't a direct declaration of war. In the end russia got their 'buffer state' back (or at least the part that is mainly economically sustainable). Then there was a civil war (with multiple not so civil actors), then there were economic sanctions.

    Where the heck would you see media misreporting on a bigger scale here?
    --

    The main thing that happened was the following.

    - The public was entirely unprepared for a media age where "tha news" wasnt only what the TV newsanchor of their choice told them for 10 minutes every day - of which they always forgot 90% two minutes after (there are studies, you know).

    - Then extreme wings of certain parties, and eastern script kiddies created aggitation click bait propaganda, that told people the entire opposite of what they were used to hearing, and that they should all be very worried about. Which people shared very eagerly - without looking at the source. Because by then they had all already adopted facebook as their 'news source'. But facebook always claimed we are only the hosting company, not a content joint, don't talk to us - ever.

    And because those more agitating news stories banked on fear, hatred, scandals, ... they spread like wildfire - and facebook made more ad moneys.

    - Then actual crisis moments (at least in europe) took place (migration crisis), where media reaction was delayed. (Again, if you are in a larger media institution, even if the west, you are mostly sympathetic to reporting about your governments actions - on the institional level. What you do with politcal personalities is different. (Puppet theatre of 'who said what' to break down some concepts more simply for the masses)). F.e. - look at the last two wars the US engaged in, at the time of their announcement - most media outlets had nothing but praise for them - even though that didnt reflect the expert opinion at the time.

    And its hard to see that relationship ever being entirely different. Because if what politics does is news. And politics decides which reporters to give exclusive stuff to - the more amicable ones to at least certain government positions will always end up with hotter and bigger news items.

    But then thats not 'corruption' thats soft power (people visiting the same coffee shops).

    How thats supposed to pan out is, that 'the most pampered' news outlet has a rival, and they don't see this favourably, and they write stuff more critically - and then get more readers, and then everybody wins.

    The rival of the most pampered news paper in todays ecosystem simply closed down. None of you noticed.

    What happened instead is - that everyone stayed on facebook, didn't learn the name and political orientation of the news outlets, was swamped by 90% of communications spending going into PR - which now for the first time ever could reach you directly, with no filter (facebook dint care), and then also got fed with 'fake media' and 'lying press' tropes, which came from political parties on the fringes, which had no pull in conventional media - because they were small, or new. But they could bootstrap their own version of infowars.

    At the same time there is state propaganda from foreign political actors.

    At the same time there is conventional media realizing, that people don't buy their products anymore to get entertainded (and if they read through facebook - 70% less revenue, even if your clickbaity story hit).

    At the same time, everyone is very enthused, about all the 'free stuff' they are getting.

    And people are falling out of bed, realizing, that what their news anchor had given them for 10 minutes all day, before they went to sleep wasn't 'all the news'.

    At the same time, conventional media becomes more 'dependant' on non public revenue streams - so the 'speak truth to power' ethos gets smaller as 'just scraping by' becomes more of a motto, and your own importance, as a societal player lessens more and more - while facebook uses all its influence to appease advertisers, who dont like conflict.

    Oh blimey...

    Lets just go with - ALL of it, was the publics fault. And you are closer to the (still subjective) truth than you are - when you spread the 'fake news is lying to us' meme.

    Really - thats the gist of it.

    Now, if you want to read 'fringe' media outlets, please do. Gaining slightly opposing viewpoints (if you are not ending up with water purifier salesmen, like Alex Jones) is beneficial to you understanding the wold out there. Just know what you are reading. That other people also have agendas. And that influencers with very strange viewpoints, also get very many followers these days.

    The two ways you have to get to 'truth' in journalism - are something like this

    - make them at least partly big (more journalists in an editorial office helps) - and still independent, (and pay at least for part of their work). Also, maybe allow more than one such entity, that isn't already owned by a billionaire who might or might have not removed editorial independence.

    if you as a public fail at that, then don't complain about fake news.

    Because its still more likely that the fringe outlet from belarus feeds you more BS, that your local, or even bigger national outlet.

    At least the news, most people care about - which first and foremost tells them how great their society is going. Most of the time.

    Thats also a problem - most people dont want to hear anything but that, and be informed about a crisis, at which point they can resort to blaming someone they dont like.


    That the media ecosystem kind of broke, is your fault, and yours alone.

    (Bigger outlets in germany had to diversify so much, that even Springer (publisher) for a time (and I think still does) made more money with their second hand car sales (and similar) platform ventures, than with journalism.)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Feb 17, 2020
  19. notimp

    notimp Well-Known Member
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    3,568
    Country:
    Laos
    Btw. I'm mainly talking about print/online journalism. Which is the basis for more 'easily digestable' forms of news, later down the road (Your fox and friends.. ;) ).

    Oh, I and I just realized, that when you were talking about 'fake news in ukraine' you might still be talking about the Trump sold out US interests for personal gains affair? In which case - no, that really happened (down to the note left by one of Gullianis henchmen in an austrian hotel). Its just that the process that developed around it later, was inherently political.

    If you are just interested in which political voice to pick for your 10 min of polit news fix for the water cooler talk - pick any. They will never be always correct. They will never have other professionals to reflect their opinions on if they are just smaller bloggers or podcasters - but so does every one elses commentary pundit.

    Just get accustom to the notion, that everyones political opinion around the water cooler will be more extreme, and diverse. Public removed journalisms gatekeeper function (by going for social media as a news 'source'), now learn to live with it.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Feb 17, 2020
    yuyuyup likes this.
  20. yuyuyup

    yuyuyup GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,470
    Country:
    United States
    I'd say he abused the phrase more than popularizing it, but I'm just a dumbdumb libturd SJEW, duh me dumby, me so triggered, me trigger you long time.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - popularized, Trump,