|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 29 2015 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:35 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" as in, stopping an action taking place. as in stopping a murder. you think bad police officers go around looking for someone to shoot up, and that "good" police officers should somehow have this 6th sense as to when this shit happens? You can't seem to comprehend at all what I am saying? Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? On April 29 2015 10:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case? Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details? Have you never heard of a lineup? The witness picks the person out of a lineup, then the suspect would be referred to by the witness as "a person I believe to be the defendant". The prosecutor could present that the defendant is the person the witness picked out of a lineup. If they couldn't pick them out of a lineup you refer to the race as "the defendant is of the same/similar race/skin pigmant that the witness described". EDIT: I should say that I have concerns about such a method but describing suspects isn't one of them. Kind of hilarious watching Fox news keep trying to say things and then get a protester to confirm it and then the protester says the opposite of what they wanted. Live TV is a little tougher when you don't screen your guests responses lol. The same reporter has asked several people the leading question of "why are you so angry" to which every single protester has said "I'm not angry". To which without fail he says "yes, but why are you so angry" like give me a fucking break. Sounds like some 4chan bullshit. "lel u mad?" "y u mad tho?" Pretty funny stuff. Other than the part that it's the most watched cable 'news' channel is kind of tragic, I agree, funny to see 'professionals' act like 4chan kids and expect to be taken seriously.
Yeah, but as a whole cable news is getting terrible ratings. It's like saying some singer is doing well because he's selling the most phonograph cylinders.
|
On April 29 2015 10:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:35 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" as in, stopping an action taking place. as in stopping a murder. you think bad police officers go around looking for someone to shoot up, and that "good" police officers should somehow have this 6th sense as to when this shit happens? You can't seem to comprehend at all what I am saying? On April 29 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? On April 29 2015 10:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld.
It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case? Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details? Have you never heard of a lineup? The witness picks the person out of a lineup, then the suspect would be referred to by the witness as "a person I believe to be the defendant". The prosecutor could present that the defendant is the person the witness picked out of a lineup. If they couldn't pick them out of a lineup you refer to the race as "the defendant is of the same/similar race/skin pigmant that the witness described". EDIT: I should say that I have concerns about such a method but describing suspects isn't one of them. Kind of hilarious watching Fox news keep trying to say things and then get a protester to confirm it and then the protester says the opposite of what they wanted. Live TV is a little tougher when you don't screen your guests responses lol. The same reporter has asked several people the leading question of "why are you so angry" to which every single protester has said "I'm not angry". To which without fail he says "yes, but why are you so angry" like give me a fucking break. Sounds like some 4chan bullshit. "lel u mad?" "y u mad tho?" Pretty funny stuff. Other than the part that it's the most watched cable 'news' channel is kind of tragic, I agree, funny to see 'professionals' act like 4chan kids and expect to be taken seriously. Yeah, but as a whole cable news is getting terrible ratings. It's like saying some singer is doing well because he's selling the most phonograph cylinders.
If they just quit trying to control narratives and dodging each other they could get a lot better ratings (a system I'm suspicious of anyway lol).
Imagine they all spent a week going on the others shows. That would be ratings gold.
EDIT: Forgot to mention I think the analogy medium choice is more apt for print media but I take the point anyway.
|
On April 29 2015 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:43 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:35 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld.
It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" as in, stopping an action taking place. as in stopping a murder. you think bad police officers go around looking for someone to shoot up, and that "good" police officers should somehow have this 6th sense as to when this shit happens? You can't seem to comprehend at all what I am saying? On April 29 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld.
It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? On April 29 2015 10:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:
[quote]
So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case? Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details? Have you never heard of a lineup? The witness picks the person out of a lineup, then the suspect would be referred to by the witness as "a person I believe to be the defendant". The prosecutor could present that the defendant is the person the witness picked out of a lineup. If they couldn't pick them out of a lineup you refer to the race as "the defendant is of the same/similar race/skin pigmant that the witness described". EDIT: I should say that I have concerns about such a method but describing suspects isn't one of them. Kind of hilarious watching Fox news keep trying to say things and then get a protester to confirm it and then the protester says the opposite of what they wanted. Live TV is a little tougher when you don't screen your guests responses lol. The same reporter has asked several people the leading question of "why are you so angry" to which every single protester has said "I'm not angry". To which without fail he says "yes, but why are you so angry" like give me a fucking break. Sounds like some 4chan bullshit. "lel u mad?" "y u mad tho?" Pretty funny stuff. Other than the part that it's the most watched cable 'news' channel is kind of tragic, I agree, funny to see 'professionals' act like 4chan kids and expect to be taken seriously. Yeah, but as a whole cable news is getting terrible ratings. It's like saying some singer is doing well because he's selling the most phonograph cylinders. If they just quit trying to control narratives and dodging each other they could get a lot better ratings (a system I'm suspicious of anyway lol). Imagine they all spent a week going on the others shows. That would be ratings gold. EDIT: Forgot to mention I think the analogy medium choice is more apt for print media but I take the point anyway.
I personally think all the 24-hour "news" networks are approximately equally terrible. Fox just doesn't try to hide it at all. Other networks change the topic or "lose" the satellite feed when someone says something they didn't want to hear. Fox sticks to trying to force their bullshit. It bothers me a little less actually. They're so obviously full of shit, they aren't really convincing anyone. The only people watching Fox for news and not laughs already think that way. CNN and MSNBC have more fence-sitting viewers though, so it is more damaging when they pull the shit they do.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
honestly there's not much to report for these riots. who smashed whcih store etc. it's also a lot of high school kids and that means they have no clue what they are doing.
the sort of actual reporting we could use would be something like an embedded reporter in a baltimore ghetto, following the daily lives of the people there.
|
On April 29 2015 10:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:35 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" as in, stopping an action taking place. as in stopping a murder. you think bad police officers go around looking for someone to shoot up, and that "good" police officers should somehow have this 6th sense as to when this shit happens? You can't seem to comprehend at all what I am saying? On April 29 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 08:47 zlefin wrote:
To help deal with bias in hiring, iirc some larger companies have blanked out the name on job applications for the person making the hiring decision. (obviously someone else at the company looks up the name to check out the history and such, but as long as that doesn't raise issues, they keep it separate).
It would seem quite hard to have a justice system wherein the accused's face/name/other identifiers are blanked; though there may be subsections of the justice system where you could do that. I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld. It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury. It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence) As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" with "Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? On April 29 2015 10:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:31 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd totally be in favor of this. If information is not relevant, it should be withheld.
It doesn't seem that impossible to me either. The only situations that might be tough are the actual arrest, and the trial. I don't think anything can be done to make the arrest color-blind, but the trial doesn't need to happen in person. There's no real need for a jury to see the accused, or even know their name. The jury could simply be given a transcript of the courtroom proceedings, with names changed to be as generic as possible. Maybe "Accused" "Victim" "Witness A, B and C". Things like that. So what you're saying is that you don't trust juries to not be racist based on skin color but you do trust the government to not provide false testimony? That sounds like a much worse system than what we have now. What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any. And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case? Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details? Have you never heard of a lineup? The witness picks the person out of a lineup, then the suspect would be referred to by the witness as "a person I believe to be the defendant". The prosecutor could present that the defendant is the person the witness picked out of a lineup. If they couldn't pick them out of a lineup you refer to the race as "the defendant is of the same/similar race/skin pigmant that the witness described". EDIT: I should say that I have concerns about such a method but describing suspects isn't one of them. Kind of hilarious watching Fox news keep trying to say things and then get a protester to confirm it and then the protester says the opposite of what they wanted. Live TV is a little tougher when you don't screen your guests responses lol. The same reporter has asked several people the leading question of "why are you so angry" to which every single protester has said "I'm not angry". To which without fail he says "yes, but why are you so angry" like give me a fucking break. Sounds like some 4chan bullshit. "lel u mad?" "y u mad tho?" Pretty funny stuff. Other than the part that it's the most watched cable 'news' channel is kind of tragic, I agree, funny to see 'professionals' act like 4chan kids and expect to be taken seriously. Yeah, but as a whole cable news is getting terrible ratings. It's like saying some singer is doing well because he's selling the most phonograph cylinders.
I dunno about "terrible". Depends on your perspective. Sure, if we're comparing it to the whales like Game of Thrones or the NBA playoffs, then yes, their ratings are terrible. But for networks that need to produce content 24/7 and show increasing ad revenue year over year, they're doing okay.
|
On April 29 2015 11:11 oneofthem wrote:
honestly there's not much to report for these riots. who smashed whcih store etc. it's also a lot of high school kids and that means they have no clue what they are doing.
the sort of actual reporting we could use would be something like an embedded reporter in a baltimore ghetto, following the daily lives of the people there.
Imagine if a news station actually used riots like these as a springboard to promote a discussion regarding police brutality and discrimination, analyzing the justifications for such demonstrations and why people are so pissed off, instead of superficially talking about broken windows.
EDIT: Appropriately, the Baltimore Sun has an article that's actually attempting to pinpoint a systemic issue:
The city has paid about $5.7 million since 2011 over lawsuits claiming that police officers brazenly beat up alleged suspects. One hidden cost: The perception that officers are violent can poison the relationship between residents and police.
~ http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
|
On April 29 2015 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 11:11 oneofthem wrote:
honestly there's not much to report for these riots. who smashed whcih store etc. it's also a lot of high school kids and that means they have no clue what they are doing.
the sort of actual reporting we could use would be something like an embedded reporter in a baltimore ghetto, following the daily lives of the people there. Imagine if a news station actually used riots like these as a springboard to promote a discussion regarding police brutality and discrimination, analyzing the justifications for such demonstrations and why people are so pissed off, instead of superficially talking about broken windows. EDIT: Appropriately, the Baltimore Sun has an article that's actually attempting to pinpoint a systemic issue: Show nested quote +The city has paid about $5.7 million since 2011 over lawsuits claiming that police officers brazenly beat up alleged suspects. One hidden cost: The perception that officers are violent can poison the relationship between residents and police. ~ http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
Real discussion doesn't get ratings. People want to see fights, burning buildings, and generally chaos.
Real discussion is way more boring than watching people set fire to an abandoned police car.
|
I think it's admirable that so many in this thread still believe the US News media operates to inform people.
|
On April 29 2015 11:30 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 29 2015 11:11 oneofthem wrote:
honestly there's not much to report for these riots. who smashed whcih store etc. it's also a lot of high school kids and that means they have no clue what they are doing.
the sort of actual reporting we could use would be something like an embedded reporter in a baltimore ghetto, following the daily lives of the people there. Imagine if a news station actually used riots like these as a springboard to promote a discussion regarding police brutality and discrimination, analyzing the justifications for such demonstrations and why people are so pissed off, instead of superficially talking about broken windows. EDIT: Appropriately, the Baltimore Sun has an article that's actually attempting to pinpoint a systemic issue: The city has paid about $5.7 million since 2011 over lawsuits claiming that police officers brazenly beat up alleged suspects. One hidden cost: The perception that officers are violent can poison the relationship between residents and police. ~ http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/ Real discussion doesn't get ratings. People want to see fights, burning buildings, and generally chaos. Real discussion is way more boring than watching people set fire to an abandoned police car.
Agreed. And it's sad that that's the case 
|
CSpan is a passable source for real discussion, sometimes at least. Or even if not real discussion, talk between people who matter.
|
On April 29 2015 11:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I think it's admirable that so many in this thread still believe the US News media operates to inform people.
I literally only listen to NPR and the BBC at this point. If people are out to make a profit on news, I don't need what they are selling. The good old days when the News was non-profit in the US.
|
On April 29 2015 11:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 11:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I think it's admirable that so many in this thread still believe the US News media operates to inform people. I literally only listen to NPR and the BBC at this point. If people are out to make a profit on news, I don't need what they are selling. The good old days when the News was non-profit in the US.
Even the BBC isn't perfect. A pretty large amount of their funding comes from advertising.
I agree they're better than Fox, but I don't know if they're all that much better than CNN or MSNBC.
I actually think TL might be the best source I use for news, which is really sad. A forum founded on watching people click really fast provides better news than actual news networks.
|
I honestly can't describe the gold that is happening on fox with these live interviews.
Every time they talk to someone outside of their sphere of influence they immediately contradict everything they were projecting onto the situation.
It's like a live rebuttal of a few of the posts here. If I saw it coming I would of recorded it. It's going to get shredded eventually.
So when it does, it would pay to remember I told you guys about this stuff as it happened. I just mean to say don't say I'm getting it from some left wing outlet.
If I had to guess the gag they use....
+ Show Spoiler +Probably a kid trying to blow (breath not bomb) up a toy and no matter how hard he blows into it...it just won't hold air. Maybe with a sad deflating sound effect. Maybe not exactly that but it the whole sarcastically predicting responses thing is the their goto when they are being lazy. This stuff is writing itself though.
Fucking gold. I want to frame it. It's easiest the best thing I've seen on any news channel ever possibly the best thing not on subscription television (HBO, STARZ, etc...) In a little over 1 day Fox news has done more to expose the right and themselves than every blogger combined.
All of 24/7 news has been worth this moment for me. Even if people don't respond like I feel they will it feels really good to see it right there.
|
United States43971 Posts
On April 29 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 11:44 Plansix wrote:On April 29 2015 11:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I think it's admirable that so many in this thread still believe the US News media operates to inform people. I literally only listen to NPR and the BBC at this point. If people are out to make a profit on news, I don't need what they are selling. The good old days when the News was non-profit in the US. Even the BBC isn't perfect. A pretty large amount of their funding comes from advertising. I agree they're better than Fox, but I don't know if they're all that much better than CNN or MSNBC. I actually think TL might be the best source I use for news, which is really sad. A forum founded on watching people click really fast provides better news than actual news networks.
Which BBC are you talking about here?
|
In terms of bashing fox news, you're a little late to the club, we've all been bashing fox news for a loooong time 
Also, I do recommend watching C-Span. It's informative, albeit dreadfully boring at times.
|
On April 29 2015 11:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:43 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:35 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury.
It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence)
As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?"
with
"Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?" as in, stopping an action taking place. as in stopping a murder. you think bad police officers go around looking for someone to shoot up, and that "good" police officers should somehow have this 6th sense as to when this shit happens? You can't seem to comprehend at all what I am saying? On April 29 2015 10:34 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2015 09:50 wei2coolman wrote:On April 29 2015 09:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lol I just imagined jurors trying to guess who the accused was based on the composition of the jury.
It would be interesting to see what that did to the racial composition of jurors and how lawyers handled it. Would ethnicity of jurors be important to the lawyers if the jurors and maybe lawyers (prosecutors and public defenders anyway) never saw the accused? It probably couldn't be done in every case (when there is video evidence)
As an aside: I heard someone on television respond to the question "Why aren't the good officers stopping the bad ones?"
with
"Because it is individual spontaneous stuff"... Do people actually think that or is that just some crazy person's suggestion? Well, yeah? Why didn't you stop all the deaths caused by people? is that cuz you're not a good dood stopping the bad doods? So yes, people do believe that nonsense. You know, it's funny none of my coworkers have killed anyone? And definitely not an unarmed person on the job while I watched. Cops can't say that. Of course we're not just talking about deaths though, we're talking about all interactions where crimes are committed by the police. So if the question is why don't I try to stop every criminal? Because it's not my job duh! I have other shit to do. Stopping criminals is precisely their job, the problem is how they stop doing their job so often when it's their buddy/partner/coworker that is the criminal. lololol, til GH seriously believe every "good" police officer could prevent every murder from happening, but the only reason this doesn't happen is because "good" police officers don't exists. Such an irresponsibly ignorant post. Are you seriously trying to suggest none of the 'good' officers see or know what is happening in their department? Ferguson for example? Like the police chief or none of his workers didn't know he was blatantly lying to the press? Again wtf are you talking about 'every murder' ? On April 29 2015 10:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 10:08 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 09:48 Jaaaaasper wrote:On April 29 2015 09:36 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
What new government abuse would this system allow? I'm not seeing any.
And this wouldn't just help with racism, it'd help against any prejudice. Ethnicity, wealth, age, I.Q., anything. So what you're saying is that you would remove prejudice by making sure that the jurors could be handed a script from law and order with the names scrubbed and not know if its the actual trial or not? And how do you propose the jurors know if the middle aged female Asian suspect is guilty if they can't see the words female middled aged or Asian? You're proposing a system so much worse than the current one that I'm left to assume you're trolling. What does the suspect being middle-aged, female, or Asian have to do with guilt? Do you really believe any of that information is relevant in any real case? Yes because other wise how do you identify the defendant? Or how does the defense prove that the witness is identifying the wrong person? How does a witness describe how they saw any thing involving any person, criminal victim police officer or other wise with out using words that would provide details? Have you never heard of a lineup? The witness picks the person out of a lineup, then the suspect would be referred to by the witness as "a person I believe to be the defendant". The prosecutor could present that the defendant is the person the witness picked out of a lineup. If they couldn't pick them out of a lineup you refer to the race as "the defendant is of the same/similar race/skin pigmant that the witness described". EDIT: I should say that I have concerns about such a method but describing suspects isn't one of them. Kind of hilarious watching Fox news keep trying to say things and then get a protester to confirm it and then the protester says the opposite of what they wanted. Live TV is a little tougher when you don't screen your guests responses lol. The same reporter has asked several people the leading question of "why are you so angry" to which every single protester has said "I'm not angry". To which without fail he says "yes, but why are you so angry" like give me a fucking break. Sounds like some 4chan bullshit. "lel u mad?" "y u mad tho?" Pretty funny stuff. Other than the part that it's the most watched cable 'news' channel is kind of tragic, I agree, funny to see 'professionals' act like 4chan kids and expect to be taken seriously. Yeah, but as a whole cable news is getting terrible ratings. It's like saying some singer is doing well because he's selling the most phonograph cylinders. If they just quit trying to control narratives and dodging each other they could get a lot better ratings (a system I'm suspicious of anyway lol). Imagine they all spent a week going on the others shows. That would be ratings gold. EDIT: Forgot to mention I think the analogy medium choice is more apt for print media but I take the point anyway. I personally think all the 24-hour "news" networks are approximately equally terrible. Fox just doesn't try to hide it at all. Other networks change the topic or "lose" the satellite feed when someone says something they didn't want to hear. Fox sticks to trying to force their bullshit. It bothers me a little less actually. They're so obviously full of shit, they aren't really convincing anyone. The only people watching Fox for news and not laughs already think that way. CNN and MSNBC have more fence-sitting viewers though, so it is more damaging when they pull the shit they do.
MSNBC is just as bad as FOX is on the subject of opinion-ism. There are a couple of shows I generally watch on FOX, namely their Sunday news with Chris Wallace and nightly news with Bret Baier, but to suggest that FOX is _the worst_ is pretty far fetching when pretty much all other news network has long ago shifted their strategies to fit in to the narratives of their viewer base. I'd argue that it is imperative for everyone to exercise their critical thinking in today's news environment with the main stream media controlling the narrative of an actual news piece, regardless of its source being FOX or MSNBC.
|
On April 29 2015 12:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 11:44 Plansix wrote:On April 29 2015 11:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I think it's admirable that so many in this thread still believe the US News media operates to inform people. I literally only listen to NPR and the BBC at this point. If people are out to make a profit on news, I don't need what they are selling. The good old days when the News was non-profit in the US. Even the BBC isn't perfect. A pretty large amount of their funding comes from advertising. I agree they're better than Fox, but I don't know if they're all that much better than CNN or MSNBC. I actually think TL might be the best source I use for news, which is really sad. A forum founded on watching people click really fast provides better news than actual news networks. Which BBC are you talking about here?
Is there more than one? I think I'm talking about the British Broadcasting Company.
I know they're funded by the crown, but 25% of their revenue comes from advertising. And if they don't pull in the ratings, their commercial breaks aren't worth as much.
|
On April 29 2015 12:20 zlefin wrote:In terms of bashing fox news, you're a little late to the club, we've all been bashing fox news for a loooong time Also, I do recommend watching C-Span. It's informative, albeit dreadfully boring at times.
Well it's nice to think C-Span matters, I suppose it does if being informed about a lot of minutia is what you're after from tv 'news'? (who does that?). But I figured it would be obvious I don't watch or comment on Fox News because that's where people here get their news (the regulars anyway).
Fox's influence on the republican primary is undeniable. As such their content probably has more political relevance and influence than C-Span (whatever doesn't make it to cable/network news). That's why I comment on them. This particular instance was a perfect storm of sorts and is c-span on the ground in Baltimore?
|
On April 29 2015 12:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 29 2015 11:44 Plansix wrote:On April 29 2015 11:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I think it's admirable that so many in this thread still believe the US News media operates to inform people. I literally only listen to NPR and the BBC at this point. If people are out to make a profit on news, I don't need what they are selling. The good old days when the News was non-profit in the US. Even the BBC isn't perfect. A pretty large amount of their funding comes from advertising. I agree they're better than Fox, but I don't know if they're all that much better than CNN or MSNBC. I actually think TL might be the best source I use for news, which is really sad. A forum founded on watching people click really fast provides better news than actual news networks. Which BBC are you talking about here?
Probably the one that went out of its way to cover up a scandal involving senior members of the government being child molesters for decades.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 29 2015 12:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2015 12:20 zlefin wrote:In terms of bashing fox news, you're a little late to the club, we've all been bashing fox news for a loooong time Also, I do recommend watching C-Span. It's informative, albeit dreadfully boring at times. Well it's nice to think C-Span matters, I suppose it does if being informed about a lot of minutia is what you're after from tv 'news'? (who does that?). But I figured it would be obvious I don't watch or comment on Fox News because that's where people here get their news (the regulars anyway). Fox's influence on the republican primary is undeniable. As such their content probably has more political relevance and influence than C-Span (whatever doesn't make it to cable/network news). That's why I comment on them. This particular instance was a perfect storm of sorts and is c-span on the ground in Baltimore?
I don't know why you'd say people here get their news from Fox, when we've already established they don't.
C-Span isn't trying to shape the narrative, just cover what's happening. But I'd say c-spans coverage is pretty high on the political relevance scale, rather by definition of what it covers. Not sure how that interacts with your what doesn't make it to regular news qualifier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
