|
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 October 18 2016 23:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:08 farvacola wrote:You mean to tell me that journalists aren't supporting the candidate who said "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," wow, how surprising. By that logic Clinton shouldn't be getting 95%+ of Wall St donations because she said she'd be tougher on Wall St. She says it on her own site : Hillarys plan to take on Wall St is "The toughest" https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/03/09/clintons-wall-street-plan-is-the-toughest-just-ask-the-experts-3/No, likely the journalists were already biased toward dems.Don't go around claiming the media isn't biased, it's pretty laughable at this stage.
minor point on reasoning:
while business does hate things like being regulated, they hate uncertainty even more, and trump is high uncertainty.
|
On October 18 2016 23:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:08 farvacola wrote:You mean to tell me that journalists aren't supporting the candidate who said "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," wow, how surprising. By that logic Clinton shouldn't be getting 95%+ of Wall St donations because she said she'd be tougher on Wall St. She says it on her own site : Hillarys plan to take on Wall St is "The toughest" https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/03/09/clintons-wall-street-plan-is-the-toughest-just-ask-the-experts-3/No, likely the journalists were already biased toward dems.Don't go around claiming the media isn't biased, it's pretty laughable at this stage.
It's possible to want a candidate to win without systematically biasing your coverage and compromising journalistic integrity.
Then again, Trump supporters don't seem to believe in integrity in anyone, so I suppose that's not something you'd believe.
|
No one claimed that the media isn't biased, try to keep up, nettles.
|
The case for journalist being biased is pretty weak since the majority of Trump’s bad press is the news playing tape of Trump saying terrible things. Which won him the primary, but is not a compelling message for the general election.
People were saying this from the start of his run, that he has his base and may never expand beyond that. That isn’t the fault of the press. Their bias comes from Trump directly attacking them, which isn’t going to win their support.
|
On October 18 2016 23:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:08 farvacola wrote:You mean to tell me that journalists aren't supporting the candidate who said "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," wow, how surprising. By that logic Clinton shouldn't be getting 95%+ of Wall St donations because she said she'd be toughest on Wall St. She says it on her own site : Hillarys plan to take on Wall St is "The toughest" https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/03/09/clintons-wall-street-plan-is-the-toughest-just-ask-the-experts-3/No, likely the journalists were already biased toward dems.Don't go around claiming the media isn't biased, it's pretty laughable at this stage.
Could it be that there is a difference between someone who argues for tougher regulation to avoid abuse and someone who threatens the very fabric of free press?
No. thats absurd. It must mean that all journalists are democratic shills.
I am seriously at all a loss to even begin to imagine how someone becomes so detached from reality that they can believe the bullshit your trying to sell.
|
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them.
|
On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them.
I feel like cbs news at least on the 2 minute news updates every half hour is unbiased.
|
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie dodged on Monday when asked if he’s proud of the way Donald Trump is running his campaign, saying only that he “can’t control” the way the candidate he supports conducts himself on the trail.
Stopped on the street by NBC News’ Kelly O’Donnell, Christie offered a defense of the statements he has made in his capacity as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, but declined to go further.
“Listen, for me, the person who needs most to be concerned about the kind of the campaign they’re running is the candidate, because it’s the candidate’s campaign,” Christie said. “It’s not my campaign, it’s not Jeff Sessions’ campaign, it’s not Rudy Giuliani’s campaign. We’re surrogates. And I’m proud of everything I’ve said and that’s all I can control. The rest of it I can’t control, Kelly.”
The clip aired on Tuesday morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“Awkward. Just so awkward,” host Mika Brzezinski quipped.
Trump’s prominent supporters have been in a tough spot over the last week as the Republican nominee’s campaign spirals downward and Trump trails in the polls. Trump faces allegations of sexual misconduct from several women, which he denies, and on the campaign trail he has offered an angry defense of himself, even demeaning his accusers’ looks.
He has also launched a full-scale attack to discredit the news media and made unfounded claims that global forces and Hillary Clinton’s campaign are conspiring to stop his election. There is no evidence that the election will be “rigged,” as Trump has repeatedly claimed, but many of his supporters believe it. Some have floated revolting if Trump loses in November.
Christie also told O’Donnell that he believes Trump’s assurances that the allegations of sexual misconduct are false.
“He’s assured me, privately, exactly what he said publicly, which is that these are lies and fabrications,” Christie said.
“And I think a number of the allegations have been discredited. We’ll see what happens with the others. I can only take him at his word, and I am.”
Source
|
On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them.
lol what?
how is unbiased media not a real thing?
If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media.
|
On October 18 2016 23:37 Hexe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. I feel like cbs news at least on the 2 minute news updates every half hour is unbiased.
While I'm with you in terms of there being news sources who are less biased overall, remember that CBS news is still an American news outlet that only has so much time to present news; story selection alone is a good place to see how bias makes itself known in pretty much everything.
On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media.
No, it wouldn't be, you'd be presenting media that is biased towards the geographic location of the station. Time and place is always an indicia of bias.
|
On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media.
As Farvacola said in the post below yours.
Where you decide to go with your camera is still a form of bias.
|
United States43752 Posts
As has been previously pointed out multiple times, the media has actually done Trump favour after favour by trying to draw parallels between shit like the Trump Foundation literally bribing politicians to support Trump's business interests and the Clinton Foundation accepting money from foreign governments in exchange for eight different departments other than Clinton's state department signing off on a deal that was above board and not within her power to approve unilaterally and then using that money to battle AIDS.
There really is no equivalency between the two candidates but in an attempt to appeal to both sides and say six of one, half a dozen of the other they have rounded a ten down to a six and a one up to a half dozen.
Not to mention that when the only votes Trump needed were the deplorables in the primary he loved that the press would repeat his latest gaffe over and over, that's how he built his base. It's only now that people outside of his base are being polled and he's realizing that they hate him that he's upset that the press are reporting on what he says and does.
|
On October 18 2016 23:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media. As Farvacola said in the post below yours. Where you decide to go with your camera is still a form of bias.
No, it actually isn't. Unless you can prove there is an agenda behind it, it is not. Not that this is what anyone is referring to when they talk about the biased media anyways.
|
On October 18 2016 23:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media. As Farvacola said in the post below yours. Where you decide to go with your camera is still a form of bias. No, it actually isn't. Unless you can prove there is an agenda behind it, it is not. Not that this is what anyone is referring to when they talk about the biased media anyways.
I think you misunderstand what we mean by bias. First off, what is biased is subjective. So no matter what the press does, it will appear biased to someone.
Second, a journalist’s job is to dig into a story and find what they feel is the truth, while being fair to all sides. That doesn’t mean all sides have merit or should be given equal time. Then the journalist presents the story to the pubic, assuming that other journalists will cover other aspects of the story if it has merit. Every decision they make is driven by their own bias, but are professionals and expected to recognize that fact.
Even if a report has an agenda, that is fine. It is up to the reader to seek out alternative viewpoints on the subject.
|
Travis, have you ever been to a newsroom cutting floor or been a part of the editorial process? Literally millions of stories are tossed aside and not included in publications, productions, or on sites for just as many different reasons. Those reasons are where bias, usually implicit, is pretty easy to see. Besides, deciding what the "news" is it's own sort of agenda in the first place.
|
|
|
asked?
If its only asked, who cares?
|
Good? Kerry is the best SoS in decades (sorry Hillz). The FARC deal had real lives on the line that mattered more than the Wikileaker's collective ego.
|
On October 18 2016 23:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media. As Farvacola said in the post below yours. Where you decide to go with your camera is still a form of bias. No, it actually isn't. Unless you can prove there is an agenda behind it, it is not. Not that this is what anyone is referring to when they talk about the biased media anyways.
You don't need an agenda to have a bias. (although as a human being you have an agenda, always... you may be upfront about your agenda.)
There is a difference between propaganda/advertising (I consciously and deliberately am trying to manipulate the people who are receiving my message)
and
Bias media/message. (My message will manipulate people in a certain way, but I might not be sure of how it will because I bias it based on assumptions of mine that I might not know about)
Now you can have less biased media, but Unbiased media is like absolute 0... never happens in the real world (not even in the physics labs where they get close)
Human beings have assumptions, those assumptions are not 100% Absolute Truth, so there is bias.
|
On October 18 2016 23:57 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 23:45 Gorsameth wrote:On October 18 2016 23:42 travis wrote:On October 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote:
Unbiased media isn't a real thing, it's a fantasy conjured up by people who are looking for a way out from underneath the crushing reality of the information surrounding them. lol what? how is unbiased media not a real thing? If I had a news network, and I went out and shown what was happening outside with a camera, that would be unbiased media. As Farvacola said in the post below yours. Where you decide to go with your camera is still a form of bias. No, it actually isn't. Unless you can prove there is an agenda behind it, it is not. Not that this is what anyone is referring to when they talk about the biased media anyways.
By definition, you have only a finite amount of resources (including time), so you cannot be “unbiased” or “objective”. You have to make choices, so you commit to such or such perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
