This made me kinda sad today...

[Hotdog]

CNN at it again... They just can't stop with the ninja edits...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/us/missing-boy-casey-hathaway-search/index.html



Obviously there were reporters on scene for this missing persons incident. They should have never reported that this person went missing when they probably knew right where he was and that he would obviously be found safe. I mean they are going to have reporters covering a case like this, so there's really no way they didn't know how all this was going to turn out. But they wanted to manipulate us into caring that there was a missing boy, even though he was going to be found safe.

Haha. Not the same. Funny though.

 

[Hotdog]

CNN at it again... They just can't stop with the ninja edits...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/us/missing-boy-casey-hathaway-search/index.html



Obviously there were reporters on scene for this missing persons incident. They should have never reported that this person went missing when they probably knew right where he was and that he would obviously be found safe. I mean they are going to have reporters covering a case like this, so there's really no way they didn't know how all this was going to turn out. But they wanted to manipulate us into caring that there was a missing boy, even though he was going to be found safe.

Not all news stories are political and wouldnt have any reason to burn with a slant.

 

[Hotdog]

Please tell me who the left media is, so I can avoid them. Can I read stuff from the leftist media when the reporter is very conservative who find their own stories and write them? How about a conservative media group that has liberal reporters? What makes media left? What people within turns them left?

Should I start watching Fox news, are they good news? You seem to post stuff from them and claim to be better informed than others.

Why should I have to jump through a bunch of hoops to prove something that is undeniably true? Im not making some shocking claim. Who are these two sides battling each other and why do they seem to always be saying the same things said from certain news outlets and not others? Why do they they defend certain news outlets? Right in your own post you just gave away that you see it too with the Fox News comment. Why are we playing games? Lets just skip past what has been established and work on other things. Fox news leans right. Yes. And pretty much every other big news corporation leans left. Thats just the way it is.

Btw, If you read through this thread I bet you would find I linked more times to CNN and any other leftist site than I did Fox news. I rarely tune into them. I get my news from a built in app on my phone that Google installed. Its called smart news. It just links a bunch of news stories. I click on them regardless of who is publishing. I then go to youtube and listen to independent media to hear different opinions on it. I dont take any journalists at their word anymore. They have destroyed their credibility.

How about we play a game. You post an article's full text involving politics. Just copy the text. Has to be from Fox News or the Huffington Post. Leave off the title and who wrote it. Ill guess which outlet its from.

 

[Red]

I'm saying this to you with the utmost respect, but "benefit of the doubt" ends once there is no longer any doubt. Phillips was not truthful in his early interviews. Stolen valor, misrepresentation of the facts, he was the instigator. He may have his reasons, but he has not demonstrated the least bit of integrity.

I'm not going to stand here and say one of the things that makes Trump unacceptable to me is his lack of integrity and then give someone a pass because they also opposed to Trump. Integrity matters to me. Phillips doesn't have any. I don't need allies like that. I don't want allies like that. He can have whatever excuse he wants, he was not honest. He invalidated any value he could have had in this conversation.

We're not necessarily on different pages. I could have more accurately written the last sentence of my comment as "just trying to provide a little context as to why he might INITIALLY get the benefit of the doubt". In other words, before we knew anything other then an image of a white boy in a MAGA hat facing off with a native elder. If everything else that followed that initial clip, with its highly inflammatory caption, resulted in your opinion of Phillips as a phony, or however you want to describe him, I can understand that. I was just speaking to reasons for any benefit of doubt that would be based on the history of the Trump administration, and more generally American history.

All the assumptions were formed during that period when the shorter clip went viral, and before any greater context emerged, including interviews of Phillips, and which became part of the conversation, re-examination of assumptions, etc.

I like this quote from a Washington Post article I read just before retiring last night: "Was this a case of the “liberal news media” rushing to destroy young people’s reputations, or of conservatives attempting to reframe reprehensible behavior into martyrdom?"

 

[Red]

You pretty much just said MAGA is akin to the rise of Nazi Germany.

This is why there is such a huge disconnect. Its insulting. The two are not even close. Why does the arguement against MAGA have to go to extreme levels to make the point seem valid? You know, you could make a compelling point even if it was rooted in more of a factually based reality.

The truth is MAGA stands for many different things for different people. Some may just see it as symbol for needing better economic conditions. In fact, I would argue that thats exactly what it stands for, for most people. Some may celebrate it as and see it with racist views associated. But I think its much fewer than you think.

Do you really think that someone how this country after everything thing it has seen and done, with all the knowledge it has gained, lesson's learned, etc.. that in just a few short years it would let its self become just like Nazi Germany? We still have world war 2 vets alive. There families are alive and have been influenced by the events. This same country gave so much help fighting that war. Alot of those same people are the same people the left accuses of being Nazi's.

Saying we need people to come into the country legally is not the same as gas the Jews and get them out of the country. Its just not.

Ya, you are supposed to push back and keep things in check. Keep things in balance. But the left is pushing back, pushing there friend over the table, out the window, into the street, in front of the car, then off the cliff. Then wonders why people are in the defensive.

Hmm. Well, I respect what your saying here, and no, I don't expect that, lurking around the corner, some horrors as bad as those of Hitler's Germany will inevitably unfold. No, I do indeed think the "American experience" and the strength of our democracy and values would prevent such a thing. Or at least be to our advantage in preventing it.

But I do see MAGA as esssentially an "eruption" of the same impulse of hyper nationalism that has plagued the world on several occasions for the past 100 years. Bear in mind, I believe I recognized Trump as a demagogue right from the very beginning of his campaign. I saw him identify scapegoats in his campaign speeches, a classic demagogue move. And I believe there was a large segment of the American population who were angry and concerned in the face of intense demographic social change, and cultural change in the form of our culture wars. And Trump's flag waving, he wrapped the flag around himself in one classic moment, are all, to me, remindful of episodes I am familiar with from studying Western history of the past 100 years. A demagogue using hyper nationalistic sentiments to gain and solidify allegiance.

And understand, I have never, ever, been a fan of the flag waving "America, love it or leave it" hyper or uber nationalism that I see in America today. I learned that slogan "America, love it or leave it" in the Vietnam era. That is when I became both politicized and, at least in that era, radicalized. Combine that with years in college studying Western history since 1789, and you've got some of the reasons I became who I am and believe what I believe and why all kinds of red flags appeared in my consciousness when Trump arrived on the scene.

And of course I recognize MAGA is not just about nationalism to its proponents, and to Trump's followers . Really, what I was doing was trying to distill my own thoughts, and how I view MAGA, in a short, succinct way. I'm not exactly one for "short and succinct", lol. It was a generalization, and that's all. But one that is essential to how I see what is happening.

I hope this at least clarifies somewhat where I am coming from, and why.

You see, Trump's followers do not recognize him as a demagogue using nationalistic sentiments to gain and maintain allegiance, and identifying scapegoats to provide targets for anger and anxiety, etc., just as nationalistic leaders are doing elsewhere in the West at this time in our history, and, to my point, have done in the past. I expect you to see me as mistaken and overreacting. But this is one reason why it is so difficult for the divisive opinions in our society to communicate with each other. You simply do not see Trump in the same context as I see him.

But, it's all good. We're going through a crisis of sorts in our history at this moment. I do not know how it will end. But I recognize a nationalistic demagogue when I see one. My study of Western history makes it impossible for me not to recognize this. And, yes, it is the bottom line source of my concerns.

 

[One Brow]

Fox news leans right. Yes. And pretty much every other big news corporation leans left. Thats just the way it is.

MSNBC leans left. CNN leans sensationalist, but not politically left nor right. NPR is also neither left nor right. That's just the way it is.

 

[framer]

I don't read their articles. And I wasn't expecting you to have screenshots. I expect that there are people out there watching out for these things (since so many cry about fake news).

I appreciate the more nuanced complaint about their tone. And I understand. CNN is not exactly a top quality news organization. But I doubt they ninja edit anything the way you implied originally.

Do they change the article significantly after more information is found without noting prior accusations? Of course they do. They are a 24 hour TV news station. In any big story, they are going to get many details significantly wrong. This happens every time. Their web reporting is a function of their TV reporting.

Now, do they go back to these stories and delineate out the inaccuracies from the real facts? Not usually. They would make the argument that it clutters the now known facts. Most of the time, as with a shooting, it doesn't matter that people thought there might have been multiple shooters when we have now proven there was only one. But it DOES make a difference when you publish an unsubstantiated claim off of Twitter as a valid accusation of sexual assault against a Supreme Court nominee and find out later that it is completely false. You need to OWN that mistake instead of just "letting the facts catch up to the story."

I mean adding and removing pieces of a story is just a side product of the fact that they run with crap they read on Twitter (or Buzzfeed) as news. If you double sourced you stories, there wouldn't be a problem. Set your journalistic sights higher than one might expect from someone like "The Thriller."

 

[Red]

You pretty much just said MAGA is akin to the rise of Nazi Germany.

This is why there is such a huge disconnect. Its insulting. The two are not even close. Why does the arguement against MAGA have to go to extreme levels to make the point seem valid? You know, you could make a compelling point even if it was rooted in more of a factually based reality.

The truth is MAGA stands for many different things for different people. Some may just see it as symbol for needing better economic conditions. In fact, I would argue that thats exactly what it stands for, for most people. Some may celebrate it as and see it with racist views associated. But I think its much fewer than you think.

Do you really think that someone how this country after everything thing it has seen and done, with all the knowledge it has gained, lesson's learned, etc.. that in just a few short years it would let its self become just like Nazi Germany? We still have world war 2 vets alive. There families are alive and have been influenced by the events. This same country gave so much help fighting that war. Alot of those same people are the same people the left accuses of being Nazi's.

Saying we need people to come into the country legally is not the same as gas the Jews and get them out of the country. Its just not.

Ya, you are supposed to push back and keep things in check. Keep things in balance. But the left is pushing back, pushing there friend over the table, out the window, into the street, in front of the car, then off the cliff. Then wonders why people are in the defensive.

Some additional food for thought. I'm not one who usually takes the position that "if the founding fathers believed this or that, then this or that is how we must think as well". But, nonetheless, here Jefferey Rosen argues that "America is living James Madison's nightmare", which included the appearance of demagogues, due to a system of choosing leaders that relies on emotion, not reason. Of course this tendency did not start with Trump, but it is just my opinion that he represents the most classic demagogue to appear here, and in my lifetime:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/

 

[Hotdog]

MSNBC leans left. CNN leans sensationalist, but not politically left nor right. NPR is also neither left nor right. That's just the way it is.

Thats just not true.

Do you know why you guys continually deny this? Its because then in a round about way you know you would be admitting unfair reach of the left and its capabilities of brainwashing so many people who spend a lot of time watching tv and not working. Its not even a conspiracy either. Its a self feeding monster. These "news" organizations and tv shows dominate the landscape because they are giving what their audience wants. This is why radio is dominated by Republicans. Where working types can listen to what they want to.

Sounds like a great American dream doesnt it? Sit home, do nothing, then vote to take good and services from the productive people. While also claiming how unfair, racist, and mean everyone is. All because the tube instructed you to. Then go out rioting and protesting because you have nothing else better to do.

Do you ever ask yourself why you dont see Republican types rioting and protesting unless its in socialist countries?

 

[Harambe]

Leaves this here

 

[One Brow]

Thats just not true.

That's just completely true.

Do you know why you guys continually deny this? Its because then in a round about way you know you would be admitting unfair reach of the left and its capabilities of brainwashing so many people who spend a lot of time watching tv and not working.

You are being self-contradictory. If, as you suggest, the reach were unfair, then these companies would not have sufficient funds to maintain their businesses.

I also love the elitism you are displaying. All the leftists are busy watching TV while the rightists are working, eh?

Where working types can listen to what they want to.

If rightists can't watch what they want to, that means they don't make money for the people that broadcast TV. Entertainment is the most capitalistic business in the world, you are only worth anything if you make money for someone.

Sounds like a great American dream doesnt it? Sit home, do nothing, then vote to take good and services from the productive people. While also claiming how unfair, racist, and mean everyone is. All because the tube instructed you to. Then go out rioting and protesting because you have nothing else better to do.

Smug, elitist, pathetic whining.

Do you ever ask yourself why you dont see Republican types rioting and protesting unless its in socialist countries?

It is fundamentally untrue to claim people "dont see Republican types rioting and protesting unless its in socialist countries". I'm curious how *you* have managed to miss all the rioting and protesting by right-wingers. I think there might be a thread on this board started because of an incident that occurred during a right-wing protest in Washington D.C. by some right-wing high-schoolers. I wish I could remember which thread that was.

 

[Hotdog]

That's just completely true.



You are being self-contradictory. If, as you suggest, the reach were unfair, then these companies would not have sufficient funds to maintain their businesses.

I also love the elitism you are displaying. All the leftists are busy watching TV while the rightists are working, eh?



If rightists can't watch what they want to, that means they don't make money for the people that broadcast TV. Entertainment is the most capitalistic business in the world, you are only worth anything if you make money for someone.



Smug, elitist, pathetic whining.



It is fundamentally untrue to claim people "dont see Republican types rioting and protesting unless its in socialist countries". I'm curious how *you* have managed to miss all the rioting and protesting by right-wingers. I think there might be a thread on this board started because of an incident that occurred during a right-wing protest in Washington D.C. by some right-wing high-schoolers. I wish I could remember which thread that was.

Did you know that radio uses advertisements too?

I dont even need to here a single advertisement to go to the store and see the same products that have been around for years or new ones, and choose from them.

Also, the democratic base is made up of a lot of young people. Who most likely live with their parents and ask for money to pay for their things. They can also use their welfare to pay for things.

Look at the democratic riots. Do you see alot of people above 30? The answer is no.

 

[One Brow]

Did you know that radio uses advertisements too?

I don't see anything that I wrote which would indicate a lack of awareness of the existence of radio advertisements. I'm sure you felt you had a point by saying they exist. You failed to make it.

I dont even need to here a single advertisement to go to the store and see the same products that have been around for years or new ones, and choose from them.

Again, I'm not seeing the relevance.

Also, the democratic base is made up of a lot of young people. Who most likely live with their parents and ask for money to pay for their things.

Young people vote at very low rates. If the Democratic base were primarily young people, Trump would have won the popular vote and the House would still be Republican.

Nice to see you are still being elitist, though.

Look at the democratic riots. Do you see alot of people above 30? The answer is no.

You mean, as opposed to all the old people in the Catholic high school protest?

I'm not sure what any of this does to support your claim that "... pretty much every other big news corporation leans left". Did you lose focus?

 

[Eminence]

There's some truth to the big TV News leaning left (for the US, not particularly left overall), but it's overblown to a comical degree. There are really only the 3 big cable news networks (Fox, CNN, MSNBC), all the over the air networks are very balanced and nobody cares about cable networks outside the big 3. CNN leans left, while Fox/MSNBC are both pushing their respective boundaries on what one would consider reliable-unbiased reporting.

 

[Alfalfa]

There's some truth to the big TV News leaning left (for the US, not particularly left overall), but it's overblown to a comical degree. There are really only the 3 big cable news networks (Fox, CNN, MSNBC), all the over the air networks are very balanced and nobody cares about cable networks outside the big 3. CNN leans left, while Fox/MSNBC are both pushing their respective boundaries on what one would consider reliable-unbiased reporting.

Educated city people tend to lean left.

 

[Hotdog]

Educated city people tend to lean left until they get older, earn some money, start a family, and gain some life experience

Fixed. I finished your sentence.

 

[Hotdog]

I don't see anything that I wrote which would indicate a lack of awareness of the existence of radio advertisements. I'm sure you felt you had a point by saying they exist. You failed to make it.



Again, I'm not seeing the relevance.



Young people vote at very low rates. If the Democratic base were primarily young people, Trump would have won the popular vote and the House would still be Republican.

Nice to see you are still being elitist, though.



You mean, as opposed to all the old people in the Catholic high school protest?

I'm not sure what any of this does to support your claim that "... pretty much every other big news corporation leans left". Did you lose focus?

Agree to disagree.

Do you know what else Ive noticed about the left when they protest? They are overwhelmingly white. We can debat all sorts of things, but this is undeniable. Do you agree with this statement? Thats easily provable.

Why do you think that is? Isnt it a paradoxical conundrum? People protesting white privilege while being guilty of white privilege themselves? Shouldn't they just punch themselves in the face to try and solve the problem? (metaphorically speaking)

 

[gandalfe]

Fixed. I finished your sentence.

http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/

 

[Hotdog]

http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/

"The analysis in this report draws on more than 10,000 interviews with registered voters in 2017 and tens of thousands of interviews conducted in previous years (see Methodology for additional detail)."

Republicans have to work more and raise families. They dont have as much time to participate in interviews.

Why do you think the polls were so wrong about this last election?

 

[gandalfe]

"The analysis in this report draws on more than 10,000 interviews with registered voters in 2017 and tens of thousands of interviews conducted in previous years (see Methodology for additional detail)."

Republicans have to work more and raise families. They dont have as much time to participate in interviews.

That's an absolutely ludicrous excuse. It would be equally accurate for me to say that Republicans are too stupid to understand the interview's questions.