|
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 January 05 2017 23:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Has anyone seen this footage of the Trump supporter who was kidnapped in Chicago? Live-streaming his torture on facebook? Why no MSM coverage, doesn't fit the narrative? I'm not going to link the footage here but it's easy to find on youtube for the moment.
The interesting angles are why there haven't been any violent protests as of yet, and why their police chief was wary of calling it a hate crime. It'll stoke some fires in younger millennials just starting to realize not all hate crimes are created equal, and those members of the alt-right that champion a white racial identity and identity politics based on that.
|
On January 05 2017 19:52 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 16:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's the ones who "Pfft" offed the fact that Hillary was the first party candidate/nominee under federal investigation, but then turned on the FBI for mentioning it at an inconvenient time. Most investigations require evidence to the crime she's accused of. But in Hillary's case, she was guilty of not being an old white guy. Would you stop dismissing every complaint against her as sexism? I'm sure there was plenty of that but come on, your country elected and re-elected a black guy with a foreign sounding name, backwards views can't be her only problem.
I've mentioned and critiqued the many things she did that were mistakes that I felt were the cause of her failure. Everything from spending decisions, VP picks, and optics control.
An investigation this long where the most they could come up was that some emails had the letter C and others did not is not worth that much effort. But somehow it is if it's Hillary on the ballot, but investigations can wait if its Trump on the ballot (Trump University, Sexual Harassment, etc...)
When you don't have evidence for the accusations you throw at someone, then the only reason you are throwing them is because of -isms.
|
On January 05 2017 22:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 19:50 Velr wrote:People have complained about fake News/hidden ads for ages, ever since tabloids went online and had to start generate the lions share of their revenue with ads. Your linked article is on "Yahoo News" (lol?) as it seems in the Beauty section (lol!?) and was first in "Teen Vogue" (lol!). Appareantly also in Teen Vogue you find these "stories": 47 Awkward Celebrity Yearbook Photos
Taylor Swift's Top 10 Red Carpet Looks Ever
How Every Sign in the Zodiac Finds Love
The Best Beauty Brands for REALLY Sensitive Skin
10 Things You Own That You Need to Clean Immediately
7 Times Your Favorite Celebrities Got REAL About Their Periods
If people talk about "News" they don't talk about trash entertainment like the example you just brought up. Except that that is precisely one of the problems. With everything being "flattened" by Google's personalized recommender system, Facebook's feed, and Twitter being just plain crap, it is increasingly hard to distinguish between fake news and real news. Otherwise some shitty fake news factory in Eastern Europe wouldn't be a problem, just as Teen Vogue is not a problem (according to you). It used to be the case that you could safely say that if you got your "news" from the Daily Sun, it was mostly made up shit, interspersed with the latest scandal about the celebrity of the month, and a bit of sports news. Somewhere on page 23 it would repeat the ANP headlines so it could justify calling itself a newspaper, rather than just a paper. And if you read the New York Times, you could expect some journalistic integrity. Nowadays, the good articles are all mixed up with the shit. And even the "quality" media like the WaPo is taking a hit, but it really doesn't even matter that the WaPo is posting shit, because half the time you don't even know the source of what appears on your screen (and this is made even worse with Google and Facebook cloning the web so that you can view it better on your phone screen, but makes it even more obtuse to figure out where the article originally came from).
It is a Problem.
But if people are surfing for News and go to their Facebook/Yahoo/Google feeds i feel like you can only blame these people themselves. Its not that hard to type in adresses of actual newspapers.
Its a problem, but mainly a problem with laziness/stupidity.
"Advertisement-News" should imho just be forbidden alltogether.
|
On January 06 2017 00:23 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 22:45 Acrofales wrote:On January 05 2017 19:50 Velr wrote:People have complained about fake News/hidden ads for ages, ever since tabloids went online and had to start generate the lions share of their revenue with ads. Your linked article is on "Yahoo News" (lol?) as it seems in the Beauty section (lol!?) and was first in "Teen Vogue" (lol!). Appareantly also in Teen Vogue you find these "stories": 47 Awkward Celebrity Yearbook Photos
Taylor Swift's Top 10 Red Carpet Looks Ever
How Every Sign in the Zodiac Finds Love
The Best Beauty Brands for REALLY Sensitive Skin
10 Things You Own That You Need to Clean Immediately
7 Times Your Favorite Celebrities Got REAL About Their Periods
If people talk about "News" they don't talk about trash entertainment like the example you just brought up. Except that that is precisely one of the problems. With everything being "flattened" by Google's personalized recommender system, Facebook's feed, and Twitter being just plain crap, it is increasingly hard to distinguish between fake news and real news. Otherwise some shitty fake news factory in Eastern Europe wouldn't be a problem, just as Teen Vogue is not a problem (according to you). It used to be the case that you could safely say that if you got your "news" from the Daily Sun, it was mostly made up shit, interspersed with the latest scandal about the celebrity of the month, and a bit of sports news. Somewhere on page 23 it would repeat the ANP headlines so it could justify calling itself a newspaper, rather than just a paper. And if you read the New York Times, you could expect some journalistic integrity. Nowadays, the good articles are all mixed up with the shit. And even the "quality" media like the WaPo is taking a hit, but it really doesn't even matter that the WaPo is posting shit, because half the time you don't even know the source of what appears on your screen (and this is made even worse with Google and Facebook cloning the web so that you can view it better on your phone screen, but makes it even more obtuse to figure out where the article originally came from). It is a Problem. But if people are surfing for News and go to their Facebook/Yahoo/Google feeds i feel like you can only blame these people themselves. Its not that hard to type in adresses of actual newspapers. Its a problem, but mainly a problem with laziness/stupidity. "Advertisement-News" should imho just be forbidden alltogether.
So you're saying that unless you're the top 1-5 newspapers in the world you're shit? Local papers, Regional Papers, the sources that Big Newspapers use--those don't count? Do you expect people to know which of the thousands of papers per state/region/country is the good and which is the bad? Do you expect someone who needs google translate to be able to differentiate between Brietbart and NYT?
What about up and coming journals?
What about unpopular journals?
Do those not count?
|
Canada11279 Posts
On January 05 2017 23:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Has anyone seen this footage of the Trump supporter who was kidnapped in Chicago? Live-streaming his torture on facebook? Why no MSM coverage, doesn't fit the narrative? I'm not going to link the footage here but it's easy to find on youtube for the moment.
CBC has it covered- it's not on the front page, but it's fairly prominently displayed in the World section with a picture and a link rather than just a link to the story.
edit.
In addition, it was one of the two US related items reported on CBC Radio One in the morning.
|
|
|
Sanya12364 Posts
For sexism and racism, US as a society is still not beyond those. Even in electing Obama, we may still have years of "token black guy" effect block the advancements of similarly qualified candidates. It's a potential reactionary effect. The same is true of sexism and other kinds of discrimination.
However, it doesn't help anyone to point at large swaths of the population and call them out with out examples of such discrimination in place.
|
On January 06 2017 00:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 00:23 Velr wrote:On January 05 2017 22:45 Acrofales wrote:On January 05 2017 19:50 Velr wrote:People have complained about fake News/hidden ads for ages, ever since tabloids went online and had to start generate the lions share of their revenue with ads. Your linked article is on "Yahoo News" (lol?) as it seems in the Beauty section (lol!?) and was first in "Teen Vogue" (lol!). Appareantly also in Teen Vogue you find these "stories": 47 Awkward Celebrity Yearbook Photos
Taylor Swift's Top 10 Red Carpet Looks Ever
How Every Sign in the Zodiac Finds Love
The Best Beauty Brands for REALLY Sensitive Skin
10 Things You Own That You Need to Clean Immediately
7 Times Your Favorite Celebrities Got REAL About Their Periods
If people talk about "News" they don't talk about trash entertainment like the example you just brought up. Except that that is precisely one of the problems. With everything being "flattened" by Google's personalized recommender system, Facebook's feed, and Twitter being just plain crap, it is increasingly hard to distinguish between fake news and real news. Otherwise some shitty fake news factory in Eastern Europe wouldn't be a problem, just as Teen Vogue is not a problem (according to you). It used to be the case that you could safely say that if you got your "news" from the Daily Sun, it was mostly made up shit, interspersed with the latest scandal about the celebrity of the month, and a bit of sports news. Somewhere on page 23 it would repeat the ANP headlines so it could justify calling itself a newspaper, rather than just a paper. And if you read the New York Times, you could expect some journalistic integrity. Nowadays, the good articles are all mixed up with the shit. And even the "quality" media like the WaPo is taking a hit, but it really doesn't even matter that the WaPo is posting shit, because half the time you don't even know the source of what appears on your screen (and this is made even worse with Google and Facebook cloning the web so that you can view it better on your phone screen, but makes it even more obtuse to figure out where the article originally came from). It is a Problem. But if people are surfing for News and go to their Facebook/Yahoo/Google feeds i feel like you can only blame these people themselves. Its not that hard to type in adresses of actual newspapers. Its a problem, but mainly a problem with laziness/stupidity. "Advertisement-News" should imho just be forbidden alltogether. So you're saying that unless you're the top 1-5 newspapers in the world you're shit? Local papers, Regional Papers, the sources that Big Newspapers use--those don't count? Do you expect people to know which of the thousands of papers per state/region/country is the good and which is the bad? Do you expect someone who needs google translate to be able to differentiate between Brietbart and NYT? What about up and coming journals? What about unpopular journals? Do those not count?
Wtf?
I surf to about 6 german and swiss newspapers daily. Some big, some small.
Your whole post makes no sense as a response to mine. Your facebook feed will just show you what you like/are interested in anyway, so how does this help with diversity except with creating brick wall bubbles? Where did i say small ones don't count.
What windmill are you fighting? Please tell me, i don't get it.
|
On January 06 2017 00:47 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 00:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 06 2017 00:23 Velr wrote:On January 05 2017 22:45 Acrofales wrote:On January 05 2017 19:50 Velr wrote:People have complained about fake News/hidden ads for ages, ever since tabloids went online and had to start generate the lions share of their revenue with ads. Your linked article is on "Yahoo News" (lol?) as it seems in the Beauty section (lol!?) and was first in "Teen Vogue" (lol!). Appareantly also in Teen Vogue you find these "stories": 47 Awkward Celebrity Yearbook Photos
Taylor Swift's Top 10 Red Carpet Looks Ever
How Every Sign in the Zodiac Finds Love
The Best Beauty Brands for REALLY Sensitive Skin
10 Things You Own That You Need to Clean Immediately
7 Times Your Favorite Celebrities Got REAL About Their Periods
If people talk about "News" they don't talk about trash entertainment like the example you just brought up. Except that that is precisely one of the problems. With everything being "flattened" by Google's personalized recommender system, Facebook's feed, and Twitter being just plain crap, it is increasingly hard to distinguish between fake news and real news. Otherwise some shitty fake news factory in Eastern Europe wouldn't be a problem, just as Teen Vogue is not a problem (according to you). It used to be the case that you could safely say that if you got your "news" from the Daily Sun, it was mostly made up shit, interspersed with the latest scandal about the celebrity of the month, and a bit of sports news. Somewhere on page 23 it would repeat the ANP headlines so it could justify calling itself a newspaper, rather than just a paper. And if you read the New York Times, you could expect some journalistic integrity. Nowadays, the good articles are all mixed up with the shit. And even the "quality" media like the WaPo is taking a hit, but it really doesn't even matter that the WaPo is posting shit, because half the time you don't even know the source of what appears on your screen (and this is made even worse with Google and Facebook cloning the web so that you can view it better on your phone screen, but makes it even more obtuse to figure out where the article originally came from). It is a Problem. But if people are surfing for News and go to their Facebook/Yahoo/Google feeds i feel like you can only blame these people themselves. Its not that hard to type in adresses of actual newspapers. Its a problem, but mainly a problem with laziness/stupidity. "Advertisement-News" should imho just be forbidden alltogether. So you're saying that unless you're the top 1-5 newspapers in the world you're shit? Local papers, Regional Papers, the sources that Big Newspapers use--those don't count? Do you expect people to know which of the thousands of papers per state/region/country is the good and which is the bad? Do you expect someone who needs google translate to be able to differentiate between Brietbart and NYT? What about up and coming journals? What about unpopular journals? Do those not count? Wtf? I surf to about 6 german and swiss newspapers daily. Some big, some small. Your whole post makes no sense as a response to mine. Your facebook feed will just show you what you like/are interested in anyway, so how does this help with diversity except with creating brick wall bubbles? Where did i say small ones don't count. What windmill are you fighting? Please tell me, i don't get it.
When you say: "Its not that hard to type in adresses of actual newspapers."
How does a layman find out which of those sites are real newspapers?
12 year old kids now who become 22 in ten years--how do they know what counts as a newspaper?
Name recognition alone?
Popularity alone?
What about smaller papers that doesn't have name recognition?
Its not that easy to "just type in a newspaper" unless you read a large swath of news and then pull back after deep analysis which of those news sources you believe. And, for many people, the fake news sites is what they fall to.
Hoping that stupidity will naturally go away is not a solution, we need to ensure culpability.
|
Are there enough reliable sites that rate the reliability of various other online sources?
a few good sites that rate things would seem to cover the issue fairly well. then people just use the ratings sites to figure out how good each thing is.
the education system could include a few lessons on how to identify the quality of a source, if that's desired.
|
I don't know how it is in the US but everyone even mildly interested in politics/news here can tell you 3-4 bigger papers and what bias they have.
The small ones are mainly local, so you will know about it just by living in your town/viölage.
If you are out for up and coming journalists, you are basically guaranteed to allready know whats what. Why would you even search further if you didn't.
|
Nobody had told Trump he probably shouldn't be calling Dems clowns?
As for that Chicago torture story, I agree that it should have been immediately coined a hate crime. The context makes that obvious and reveals a clear double standard.
Thankfully all the suspects are 18 so we can rest knowing they will be rotting in prison for a while.
|
Some signs that Trump is walking back his intelligence statements, which is good.
Reuters:
Donald Trump's spokesman on Thursday rejected media reports that said the Republican president-elect was planning to restructure the nation's intelligence agencies, calling the reports "100 percent false."
"There is no truth to this idea of restructuring the intelligence community infrastructure," Trump spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters in a conference call. "All transition activities are for information gathering purposes and all discussions are tentative."
Even though transition activities are obviously not for information gathering purposes only lol.
|
On January 06 2017 02:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Nobody had told Trump he probably shouldn't be calling Dems clowns?
As for that Chicago torture story, I agree that it should have been immediately coined a hate crime. The context makes that obvious and reveals a clear double standard.
Thankfully all the suspects are 18 so we can rest knowing they will be rotting in prison for a while.
Why are people saying they are a part of BLM? I dont get why thats even being discussed:/
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 06 2017 01:03 Velr wrote:
I don't know how it is in the US but everyone even mildly interested in politics/news here can tell you 3-4 bigger papers and what bias they have.
The small ones are mainly local, so you will know about it just by living in your town/viölage.
If you are out for up and coming journalists, you are basically guaranteed to allready know whats what. Why would you even search further if you didn't.
I had a really hard time trying to get any consensus on what people think of UK papers, and you might also have the same problem if you tried with US papers (possibly a fun exercise to try).
Though what I've definitely soured on is any foreign country reporting on news in another country. When there isn't an obvious agenda there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at hand.
|
On January 06 2017 01:03 Velr wrote:
I don't know how it is in the US but everyone even mildly interested in politics/news here can tell you 3-4 bigger papers and what bias they have.
The small ones are mainly local, so you will know about it just by living in your town/viölage.
If you are out for up and coming journalists, you are basically guaranteed to allready know whats what. Why would you even search further if you didn't.
So you're okay with leaning on only 3-4 sources of media for your news with the assumption that those 3-4 are "obviously better" than another person's 3-4 news sources... just because?
|
On January 06 2017 02:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 01:03 Velr wrote:
I don't know how it is in the US but everyone even mildly interested in politics/news here can tell you 3-4 bigger papers and what bias they have.
The small ones are mainly local, so you will know about it just by living in your town/viölage.
If you are out for up and coming journalists, you are basically guaranteed to allready know whats what. Why would you even search further if you didn't. So you're okay with leaning on only 3-4 sources of media for your news with the assumption that those 3-4 are "obviously better" than another person's 3-4 news sources... just because?
No? But i won't consult everything i can find every time when i just want a glance of what happened yesterday/during the night and see if there is something interesting. Like you know, Humans tend to do.
Your constantly picking out posts of people and assume the worst possible intentions in them, why or you such a sad person?
Someone said something bad about Clinton --> Sexist!
Someone said social media newsfeeds are bad --> He hates/dismisses small newspapers! (I still don't know how you even made that leap)
Someone had Sex with a Woman that had a few drinks and he paid the taxi --> Rapist!
Are you actually ever out in the real world and have talked to normal people? Get a grip. People like you are the reason Trump won.
@Legallord:
Yes, sure its hard. Well Switzerland is small so i could tell you pretty spot on how the big 5-6 lean and the local papers are mainly just, well, very local indeed. So there isn't even that much space for clear bias in them because they focus on what actually happened/took place around town/region.
|
On January 06 2017 02:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Nobody had told Trump he probably shouldn't be calling Dems clowns?
As for that Chicago torture story, I agree that it should have been immediately coined a hate crime. The context makes that obvious and reveals a clear double standard.
Thankfully all the suspects are 18 so we can rest knowing they will be rotting in prison for a while.
what does your last sentence mean? you like it when especially young adults throw their lives away so that taxpayers can pay for them to rot in jail? or that you wouldn't want someone to escape their sentence by dying on us?
|
On January 06 2017 02:12 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 02:06 On_Slaught wrote:
Nobody had told Trump he probably shouldn't be calling Dems clowns?
As for that Chicago torture story, I agree that it should have been immediately coined a hate crime. The context makes that obvious and reveals a clear double standard.
Thankfully all the suspects are 18 so we can rest knowing they will be rotting in prison for a while. Why are people saying they are a part of BLM? I dont get why thats even being discussed:/
Because linking the attack to BLM (regardless of fairness) badly undercuts BLM and its message. All you have to do is imagine what type of coverage that we'd receive had the video been of a bunch white guys beating a black kid and forcing him to say "fuck Obama."
|
On January 06 2017 02:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2017 01:03 Velr wrote:
I don't know how it is in the US but everyone even mildly interested in politics/news here can tell you 3-4 bigger papers and what bias they have.
The small ones are mainly local, so you will know about it just by living in your town/viölage.
If you are out for up and coming journalists, you are basically guaranteed to allready know whats what. Why would you even search further if you didn't. So you're okay with leaning on only 3-4 sources of media for your news with the assumption that those 3-4 are "obviously better" than another person's 3-4 news sources... just because?
what are you arguing for here? that people should be told by someone else what newspapers to read?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
