2020 Presidential election

[NAOS]

I think the media is too left leaning to the point people discredit/ignore the media. I think the media agenda actually hurts the democratic party. More specifically, I want a neutral media, that reports news. I don't think any news outlet is that way. I want media I can rely on for actual information. We don't have that.

My point initially was to discredit Thriller's idea that somehow the media would grasp anything negative Biden did and run with it for weeks. That is clearly not the case as the Reade accusation has shown, which is why I brought it up, and to point at the actual media bias. It is annoying that the large majority of media outlets was to go against Kavanaugh but it seems the opposite with Biden, when to me, both accusers are just as credible. The media and Dems were quick to lash out stating that Kavanaugh had no business being on the court. And that was when he shoved his junk in a girls face as a college student while drunk, not groped and kissed her as Reade has alleged. I just don't understand the double standard. Which led me to my statements that I'm just frustrated with our parties generally. Not to argue with anyone, just to point out how sad our two parties are right now.

With Trump, all I saw was Stormy Daniels coverage everywhere. TV, Facebook, etc. Same with Kavanaugh. It was simply unavoidable. Yet with Biden, we see it, read it, but it is largely in the background. I'd think if there was an official complaint to a government agency by an accuser against Kavanaugh, the press and Congress would be demanding it. Yet it stays in the background with Biden/Reade. Just odd really.

Normally we could just vote based on the information we have, but when the options are Trump or Biden, there really isn't a choice.

Lately, I’ve been going back and revisiting some interviews Jon Stewart gave to Fox News back at the peak of his insight (which, I’d say was probably somewhere in the period of the early aughts). In my opinion, most of his critique of the media is pretty spot-on; and maybe you’d enjoy hearing some of what he had to say, since you seem to be heading toward some of the same questions.

Stewart would say that of course any kind of media coverage is informed by the producers’ ideological background. This is philosophically obvious (even a simple thought is informed by the significance and value of certain concepts over others). But the difference with Fox News was (and still is) that not only was their content informed by an ideological background, but they were an ACTIVIST organization deliberately pushing that ideology.

MSNBC seems to have noticed the financial success of the Fox-mode and turned themselves into a similar organization. And then there’s been the rise of Brietbart, OAN, and a few other fringe types since then. But for the most part, according to Stewart, the media is filled with a bias toward sensationalism, conflict generation, and laziness—not Fox-style activism. I tend to agree. It seems like this distinction may be useful to you.

Personally, I don’t find it very challenging to get straight reportage, even if I have to read about the same story from two or three different outlets before I get the basic picture in enough detail. And, it’s usually pretty easy to distinguish the reporting from the analysis, and to discard the latter (if I want to). But it would be nice if this were even easier to do. For sure.

There’s also a handful of outlets that, for the most part, are doing excellent work. It’s good media. The critiques I see of them usually seem to ring of someone expecting to be spoon fed; we all should read around anyway.

More generally, I’d disagree that the media is particularly left-leaning.... But that statement probably says as much about me as it does the position of the media itself. And same goes for your complaint. Or maybe you just have a bad media diet and poor self-control, plugging in too often and into bad sources.

There is no purely neutral media. That’s a figment of some weird dream.

 

[One Brow]

I think the media is too left leaning to the point people discredit/ignore the media. I think the media agenda actually hurts the democratic party. More specifically, I want a neutral media, that reports news. I don't think any news outlet is that way. I want media I can rely on for actual information. We don't have that.

While there are left-leaning media outlets, most of what we consider the mainstream media (broadcast/CNN/Times/Post/Tribune/WSJ/etc.) has a corporatist bias, which is natural because they are owned by large corporations.

..., when to me, both accusers are just as credible.

I think something happened to Reade that shocked her and violated her personal boundaries. However, I don't think Reade has been accurate in her recent descriptions of that event, she has stretched the truth about too much over too extended a period of time, and altered her description over time of this event. There is no such history for Ford. So, I don't find them equally credible, but I am not saying Reade made the whole thing up, either.

 

[Avery]

The best way to make informed decisions is to read multiple sources of the same story and come to your own conclusion.

If you only watch CNN, Fox News, OAN, whatever, you're sure to be jaded. Get different points of view and you'll be a better global citizen.

 

[PJF]

Screw Biden.

 

[fishonjazz]

The best way to make informed decisions is to read multiple sources of the same story and come to your own conclusion.

If you only watch CNN, Fox News, OAN, whatever, you're sure to be jaded. Get different points of view and you'll be a better global citizen.

This is where we should follow the example of pjf. You can tell that poster always looks at many different sources and does as much fact checking as possible.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[candrew]

The best way to make informed decisions is to read multiple sources of the same story and come to your own conclusion.

If you only watch CNN, Fox News, OAN, whatever, you're sure to be jaded. Get different points of view and you'll be a better global citizen.

The news outlets are unwatchable. CNN and MSNBC break down every single segment or interview into two parts:
a. Have the guest/host say something critical about Trump
b. Have the guest/host say something terrifying

With Fox News it's even simpler:
a. Pose a bunch of biased or oversimplified statements disguised as questions in order to reinforce the station's agenda

Or better yet just bring some unaccredited bull **** artist on - the guy who started this whole thing about Hydroxychloroquin was some quack who claimed he was from Stanford University (he wasn't from Stanford University) and made some observations of a few patients (I don't remember the exact number, but it was ridiculously low) who had taken the drug and appeared to respond positively. As a result we've had to endure 300 posts, each 3000 words long from babe about this horse ****.

If you want to learn about something - do what you you were taught in 5th grade when you started writing book reports - primary sources. As I've said before, if you want to learn about the Mueller Investigation - read the report. There are a multitude of places online where you can download it for free. If you want to learn about COVID-19 there are literally thousands of longform interviews/podcasts that have been published/composed by medical professionals.

People complain about our lazy/biased mainstream media - but the fact is it's merely a reflection of what the public has become.

 

[PJF]

 

[Avery]

Anyone think the conventions are basically a waste of time? I've never cared for them, seem quite self-serving and kind of glad to see them get pushed to the background this year anyway.

 

[NAOS]

Anyone think the conventions are basically a waste of time? I've never cared for them, seem quite self-serving and kind of glad to see them get pushed to the background this year anyway.

Any steps toward muting noise from Parties is good, imo.

 

[Avery]

Any steps toward muting noise from Parties is good, imo.

Yeah, four days of hearing speech after cheerleading speech must be draining. Delegate roll calls are just an exercise for pomp and circumstance.

Just another bloated exercise in politics. It's too bad being a democrat means you're a whiny liberal ninny and a republican means you're a racist, backwoods bigot. There's a whole lot of area in between where most of us live.

 

[NAOS]

Yeah, four days of hearing speech after cheerleading speech must be draining. Delegate roll calls are just an exercise for pomp and circumstance.

Just another bloated exercise in politics. It's too bad being a democrat means you're a whiny liberal ninny and a republican means you're a racist, backwoods bigot. There's a whole lot of area in between where most of us live.

At one point, there was some public discussion about what would happen if news outlets stopped identifying elected officials by putting an (R) or a (D) next to their name when they appeared on camera. Such a thing would obviously prevent the viewer from making an immediate assumption about the perspective they were about to hear.

I’m all ears when it comes to these kinds of experiments.

 

[Red]

The spineless sycophants — who attacked Never Trumpers for their show of integrity, who fashioned disingenuous excuses for Trump and who concoct elaborate rationalizations to oppose voting for former vice president Joe Biden (Socialist!) — will swear up and down that Hillary Clinton would have been worse. (Really — denying a pandemic? Inducing supporters not to wear lifesaving masks? Embracing white nationalists? Staffing the White House with a cohort of incompetents? Giving Vladimir Putin a free pass on targeting U.S. troops?) Some will insist they were against Trump all along. Some (a tiny few) will show some modicum of remorse, and some will try to ignore the past four years of intellectual hackery. What “polite society” (if there is such a thing) must not do is forget their role in sustaining an un-American president whose incompetency has resulted in more than 100,000 unnecessary deaths.

The bill is coming due for those who sold their souls to Trump. The voters may boot out a good number of incumbents. The rest of us, however, will have learned how through silence and collaboration a cadre of well-educated comfortable men and women can rationalize and excuse anything. It has been a frightening lesson in human weakness and propensity to accommodate themselves to evil, which should remind us the only thing that really matters in public life is character.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/15/how-will-republicans-will-rationalize-supporting-trump/

 

[The Thriller]

Peter Navarro writes a hit against Fauci which we all know trump authorized.

The hit job is published by USA Today



The WH pretends that they didn’t know about it.

The disinformation spreads.

A day later the media admits that the piece shouldn’t have run.

The “liberal” MSM lol... we do not have a liberal MSM in America.

 

[silesian]

Ford was credible but lacked proof

kavanaugh’s accusers besides Ford lacked credibility. Ford was credible but lacked proof. No one knows what happened in that room.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Kavanaugh was treated unfairly

his meltdown was embarrassing

Biden’s accuser also lacks credibility. Her story is full of holes. BS just like many of Kavanaugh’s accusers.

We need to listen seriously to women’s accusations.
We should not blindly believe them

“me too” many good points but some take it to extremes and undermine the movement.

I don’t have a side. Side with the truth, not a party.

 

[silesian]

With Trump, all I saw was Stormy Daniels coverage everywhere. TV, Facebook, etc. Same with Kavanaugh. It was simply unavoidable. Yet with Biden, we see it, read it, but it is largely in the background. I'd think if there was an official complaint to a government agency by an accuser against Kavanaugh, the press and Congress would be demanding it. Yet it stays in the background with Biden/Reade. Just odd really.

I don’t find this odd at all. It was thoroughly investigated in the press. NPR has a great piece on it and intervened many people. There is just nothing there so they dropped it. If there were substance, it would be the lead on fox and Breitbart every day.

 

[Beer]

Ford was credible but lacked proof

kavanaugh’s accusers besides Ford lacked credibility. Ford was credible but lacked proof. No one knows what happened in that room.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Kavanaugh was treated unfairly

his meltdown was embarrassing

Biden’s accuser also lacks credibility. Her story is full of holes. BS just like many of Kavanaugh’s accusers.

We need to listen seriously to women’s accusations.
We should not blindly believe them

“me too” many good points but some take it to extremes and undermine the movement.

I don’t have a side. Side with the truth, not a party.

It is not unreasonable at all for both Kavanaugh and Ford to both be completely honest. Something that happened 30 years ago is hard enough to remember and even something that happened 10 min ago is open to 2 very different interpretations. I assume the same with Biden though I don't know as much about it.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

It is not unreasonable at all for both Kavanaugh and Ford to both be completely honest. Something that happened 30 years ago is hard enough to remember and even something that happened 10 min ago is open to 2 very different interpretations. I assume the same with Biden though I don't know as much about it.

The difference is Reade made a formal complaint. If a formal complaint was made about me contemporaneously, I'd never forget it, or who accused me, whether true or not. Biden claims he doesn't know/remember her. Releasing the complaint would go a long way.

 

[PJF]

 

[Avery]

You just gave me another reason to vote for Biden.

 

[NAOS]

The difference is Reade made a formal complaint. If a formal complaint was made about me contemporaneously, I'd never forget it, or who accused me, whether true or not. Biden claims he doesn't know/remember her. Releasing the complaint would go a long way.

Two sincere questions:

1. a long way toward what?

2. what specific use value do you anticipate this information will have as of Thursday, July 16th?