boyst Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 31 minutes ago, The Poojer said: I'm a simple man, so i just want to make sure i am understanding this....this video is pretty much the same thing that Sinclair stations/news outlets are being hammered for....using scripted statements saying pretty much the same thing..but one side is bad and this one is ok? Am i on the same page? What Sinclair issued in their news was no bias nor slant. It's being targeted as such by those who fear truth and honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 12 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Wouldja? Butterface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 13 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Wouldja? Wasn't there an agreement a while back that NOBODY should ever post this picture again? It's bad for one's health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, The Poojer said: i don't really see anything wrong with the content of that statement. every media outlet should be striving to do what that message is saying, to provide unbiased news, period. not once did i hear anything that this was pro 'anyone' or anti 'anyone', simply stating that fair and accurate news reporting should be the end all be all for media outlets. If people want to boycott these outlets because of this particular unified message then i think we are in deeper trouble than i thought we were. It's not so much this specific message people are upset about, it is merely the clearest example. The core issue is that these are being presented to Local News viewers disingenuously. In the example, you can see, they are not reporting so much as actors reading a script. If the point of it was to to merely establish a mission statement for responsible journalism, why not be upfront that it's a sponsored message? Sinclair literally forces Local News affiliates to run certain stories & messages, and individual reporters are threatened with firing if they don't comply (see first post). These mandated stories & messages have been aligned with the White House's agenda — from the example video on "don't trust the media" to Deep State theories to being forced to air conservative op-eds from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump advisor (examples are in the John Oliver video). Again, these are all presented on Local News as being organic segments on the program; the fact that it is mandated from Sinclair is hidden. That is why people are upset. Sinclair has direct ties to the White House. So if you would be concerned about "Orwellian state-controlled media propaganda," then Sinclair's actions should be concerning. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 Quote Kushner said the agreement with Sinclair, which owns television stations across the country in many swing states and often packages news for their affiliates to run, gave them more access to Trump and the campaign, according to six people who heard his remarks. In exchange, Sinclair would broadcast their Trump interviews across the country without commentary, Kushner said. Kushner highlighted that Sinclair, in states like Ohio, reaches a much wider audience—around 250,000 listeners—than networks like CNN, which reach somewhere around 30,000. Trump went to CNN for better coverage; was denied. Kushner and Sinclair make an agreement; both sides say totally normal, nothing different from any other network incentivizing a candidate for interviews. Then Trump ramps up his CNN fake news schtick around the time he strikes this "extended deal" with Sinclair, who were already known to be conservative-leaning and doing "must run" stories. So the message of Sinclair Local News affiliates doing the must run on "don't believe a lot of what you hear out there, but you can trust us, the reliable Local News" -- that sucks. We should expect better from presidents & journalists than gaslighting the public, this lame attempt at "don't believe anything you hear unless you hear it from me." It's ridiculous. The major obstacle to solving such a problem is the intense partisanship, as evidenced by most of the replies in this thread. 7 hours ago, B-Man said: Amazing, right? See for yourselves: This isn't even close to the same thing, B-Man. The Sinclair video shows actors reading a script, while pretending to still be your friendly Local News reporters. Your video shows CNN and MSNBC using the words "concerned" and "propaganda" talking about this story. Uhh, yeah? No sh*t? It is propaganda and it is concerning. The fact that you think this is somehow the same is exactly the partisan problem I'm referring to. Edited April 4, 2018 by LA Grant 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 36 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Wasn't there an agreement a while back that NOBODY should ever post this picture again? It's bad for one's health. I don't know if there was an agreement or not but I am willing to sacrifice a couple of the good guys like you if this does a few of the newcomers like the OP in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Thank you for this explanation. Had they added a simple disclaimer at the beginning all of this could have been avoided. That being said, don't you think it's almost become 'necessary' for these kinds of things in the 'news outlets' these days. I don't think there is much of an argument that 'main stream media' is slanted against anything republican, not saying that these sinclair outlets aren't doing the same thing on the opposite side. it frustrates me to no end that i have to read a headline, google it to see how many different ways its being 'reported' so i can see if i can get to the 'real truth'. that's kind of why i lurk here, even if does go from extreme to extreme, there are 2 sides pointing out accuracies/inaccuracies on both sides and forces you not take what is being spoon fed as the truth 8 hours ago, LA Grant said: It's not so much this specific message people are upset about, it is merely the clearest example. The core issue is that these are being presented to Local News viewers disingenuously. In the example, you can see, they are not reporting so much as actors reading a script. If the point of it was to to merely establish a mission statement for responsible journalism, why not be upfront that it's a sponsored message? Sinclair literally forces Local News affiliates to run certain stories & messages, and individual reporters are threatened with firing if they don't comply (see first post). These mandated stories & messages have been aligned with the White House's agenda — from the example video on "don't trust the media" to Deep State theories to being forced to air conservative op-eds from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump advisor (examples are in the John Oliver video). Again, these are all presented on Local News as being organic segments on the program; the fact that it is mandated from Sinclair is hidden. That is why people are upset. Sinclair has direct ties to the White House. So if you would be concerned about "Orwellian state-controlled media propaganda," then Sinclair's actions should be concerning. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 Trump went to CNN for better coverage; was denied. Kushner and Sinclair make an agreement; both sides say totally normal, nothing different from any other network incentivizing a candidate for interviews. Then Trump ramps up his CNN fake news schtick around the time he strikes this "extended deal" with Sinclair, who were already known to be conservative-leaning and doing "must run" stories. So the message of Sinclair Local News affiliates doing the must run on "don't believe a lot of what you hear out there, but you can trust us, the reliable Local News" -- that sucks. We should expect better from presidents & journalists than gaslighting the public, this lame attempt at "don't believe anything you hear unless you hear it from me." It's ridiculous. The major obstacle to solving such a problem is the intense partisanship, as evidenced by most of the replies in this thread. This isn't even close to the same thing, B-Man. The Sinclair video shows actors reading a script, while pretending to still be your friendly Local News reporters. Your video shows CNN and MSNBC using the words "concerned" and "propaganda" talking about this story. Uhh, yeah? No sh*t? It is propaganda and it is concerning. The fact that you think this is somehow the same is exactly the partisan problem I'm referring to. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 8 hours ago, LA Grant said: It's not so much this specific message people are upset about, it is merely the clearest example. The core issue is that these are being presented to Local News viewers disingenuously. In the example, you can see, they are not reporting so much as actors reading a script. If the point of it was to to merely establish a mission statement for responsible journalism, why not be upfront that it's a sponsored message? Sinclair literally forces Local News affiliates to run certain stories & messages, and individual reporters are threatened with firing if they don't comply (see first post). These mandated stories & messages have been aligned with the White House's agenda — from the example video on "don't trust the media" to Deep State theories to being forced to air conservative op-eds from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump advisor (examples are in the John Oliver video). Again, these are all presented on Local News as being organic segments on the program; the fact that it is mandated from Sinclair is hidden. That is why people are upset. Sinclair has direct ties to the White House. So if you would be concerned about "Orwellian state-controlled media propaganda," then Sinclair's actions should be concerning. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 Trump went to CNN for better coverage; was denied. Kushner and Sinclair make an agreement; both sides say totally normal, nothing different from any other network incentivizing a candidate for interviews. Then Trump ramps up his CNN fake news schtick around the time he strikes this "extended deal" with Sinclair, who were already known to be conservative-leaning and doing "must run" stories. So the message of Sinclair Local News affiliates doing the must run on "don't believe a lot of what you hear out there, but you can trust us, the reliable Local News" -- that sucks. We should expect better from presidents & journalists than gaslighting the public, this lame attempt at "don't believe anything you hear unless you hear it from me." It's ridiculous. The major obstacle to solving such a problem is the intense partisanship, as evidenced by most of the replies in this thread. In my opinion, none of this is new. I'd have to be convinced that this hasn't been going on for years with newspapers and network broadcasts. News Broadcasters have been replaced in large part by News Commentators at the main networks. What Sinclair had their affiliates read and how it was presented doesn't strike me as horrible. If there was proof that Sinclair manipulated stories and forced their outlets to broadcast them (the opposite of the statement) then I'd be pissed. I'm not saying that this isn't going on, but I highly suspect that Sinclair would not be alone. Also consider why this is happening now. After Trump was elected, the outcry and backlash in the network media was completely transparent. You could say that the unanimity in the network media was never seen before. Immediately, there was a "resist", and a "not my President" message from just about everywhere. Most, if not all, of Trump's cabinet choices were unfavorably received -- or thought of as the adults in the room. So, going forward, IF Sinclair has its local outfits back up the statement with fair reporting (which remains to be seen) then how or why would this be a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 27 minutes ago, snafu said: So, going forward, IF Sinclair has its local outfits back up the statement with fair reporting (which remains to be seen) then how or why would this be a problem? Because fair reporting is not in an SJW's interests. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 9 hours ago, LA Grant said: It's not so much this specific message people are upset about, it is merely the clearest example. The core issue is that these are being presented to Local News viewers disingenuously. In the example, you can see, they are not reporting so much as actors reading a script. If the point of it was to to merely establish a mission statement for responsible journalism, why not be upfront that it's a sponsored message? Sinclair literally forces Local News affiliates to run certain stories & messages, and individual reporters are threatened with firing if they don't comply (see first post). These mandated stories & messages have been aligned with the White House's agenda — from the example video on "don't trust the media" to Deep State theories to being forced to air conservative op-eds from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump advisor (examples are in the John Oliver video). Again, these are all presented on Local News as being organic segments on the program; the fact that it is mandated from Sinclair is hidden. That is why people are upset. Sinclair has direct ties to the White House. So if you would be concerned about "Orwellian state-controlled media propaganda," then Sinclair's actions should be concerning. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 Trump went to CNN for better coverage; was denied. Kushner and Sinclair make an agreement; both sides say totally normal, nothing different from any other network incentivizing a candidate for interviews. Then Trump ramps up his CNN fake news schtick around the time he strikes this "extended deal" with Sinclair, who were already known to be conservative-leaning and doing "must run" stories. So the message of Sinclair Local News affiliates doing the must run on "don't believe a lot of what you hear out there, but you can trust us, the reliable Local News" -- that sucks. We should expect better from presidents & journalists than gaslighting the public, this lame attempt at "don't believe anything you hear unless you hear it from me." It's ridiculous. The major obstacle to solving such a problem is the intense partisanship, as evidenced by most of the replies in this thread. This isn't even close to the same thing, B-Man. The Sinclair video shows actors reading a script, while pretending to still be your friendly Local News reporters. Your video shows CNN and MSNBC using the words "concerned" and "propaganda" talking about this story. Uhh, yeah? No sh*t? It is propaganda and it is concerning. The fact that you think this is somehow the same is exactly the partisan problem I'm referring to. Holy ****, you're obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 9 hours ago, LA Grant said: It's not so much this specific message people are upset about, it is merely the clearest example. The core issue is that these are being presented to Local News viewers disingenuously. In the example, you can see, they are not reporting so much as actors reading a script. If the point of it was to to merely establish a mission statement for responsible journalism, why not be upfront that it's a sponsored message? Sinclair literally forces Local News affiliates to run certain stories & messages, and individual reporters are threatened with firing if they don't comply (see first post). These mandated stories & messages have been aligned with the White House's agenda — from the example video on "don't trust the media" to Deep State theories to being forced to air conservative op-eds from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump advisor (examples are in the John Oliver video). Again, these are all presented on Local News as being organic segments on the program; the fact that it is mandated from Sinclair is hidden. That is why people are upset. Sinclair has direct ties to the White House. So if you would be concerned about "Orwellian state-controlled media propaganda," then Sinclair's actions should be concerning. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 Trump went to CNN for better coverage; was denied. Kushner and Sinclair make an agreement; both sides say totally normal, nothing different from any other network incentivizing a candidate for interviews. Then Trump ramps up his CNN fake news schtick around the time he strikes this "extended deal" with Sinclair, who were already known to be conservative-leaning and doing "must run" stories. So the message of Sinclair Local News affiliates doing the must run on "don't believe a lot of what you hear out there, but you can trust us, the reliable Local News" -- that sucks. We should expect better from presidents & journalists than gaslighting the public, this lame attempt at "don't believe anything you hear unless you hear it from me." It's ridiculous. The major obstacle to solving such a problem is the intense partisanship, as evidenced by most of the replies in this thread. This isn't even close to the same thing, B-Man. The Sinclair video shows actors reading a script, while pretending to still be your friendly Local News reporters. Your video shows CNN and MSNBC using the words "concerned" and "propaganda" talking about this story. Uhh, yeah? No sh*t? It is propaganda and it is concerning. The fact that you think this is somehow the same is exactly the partisan problem I'm referring to. why not just summarize by saying "MY GUYS AREN'T THE PARTISANS, YOUR GUYS ARE THE PARTISANS!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 45 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: why not just summarize by saying "MY GUYS AREN'T THE PARTISANS, YOUR GUYS ARE THE PARTISANS!". Because it's impossible to be a pedantic blowhard in 140 characters or less. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 57 minutes ago, Azalin said: Because it's impossible to be a pedantic blowhard in 140 characters or less. I've done it. Just takes time and commitment! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 3 hours ago, The Poojer said: Thank you for this explanation. Had they added a simple disclaimer at the beginning all of this could have been avoided. That being said, don't you think it's almost become 'necessary' for these kinds of things in the 'news outlets' these days. I don't think there is much of an argument that 'main stream media' is slanted against anything republican, not saying that these sinclair outlets aren't doing the same thing on the opposite side. it frustrates me to no end that i have to read a headline, google it to see how many different ways its being 'reported' so i can see if i can get to the 'real truth'. that's kind of why i lurk here, even if does go from extreme to extreme, there are 2 sides pointing out accuracies/inaccuracies on both sides and forces you not take what is being spoon fed as the truth La grant is just butthurt because he is a partisan rooster sucker. He is in denial of Trump. There needed no disclaimer. The ability of cognitive dissonance in Grant is that of a 3rd grader understanding algebra. Grant tried really hard but has been proven to be disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and a flat out liar there really is no reason to take his Viewpoint as anything serious. Every article you Google has been run through the Google algorithm to show you Google's bias, which is proving. Google leans left and quite hard. Next time you Google an article go with Duckduckgo.com You will see a wide variety of you points that have not been rated on Google's algorithm. A simple exhibit in this is going to news.google.com and looking at their headlines and the sources of information that they use. From BuzzFeed to CNN to wapo all the way to Salon. Google doesn't hide their sources, and their sources are entirely slanted. It is not off and you will see a source from Fox News, or any other credible site. One of the best recently has been Sara carter's website. You also never see Christian Science monitor which actually puts out good articles. In fact you will see Al Jazeera and NYDN more than you will a conservative source. I'm not a republican, but I do think liberalism is a disease right next to religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Azalin said: Because it's impossible to be a pedantic blowhard in 140 characters or less. Seriously? Have you even read my posts? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: Seriously? Have you even read my posts? It does take some skill, but if you choose your words carefully and are concise you can achieve pedantry and blowhardistry in a small space. In a sense, that is what poetry is. So, congratulations, you are a poet! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 12 hours ago, LA Grant said: It's not so much this specific message people are upset about, it is merely the clearest example. The core issue is that these are being presented to Local News viewers disingenuously. In the example, you can see, they are not reporting so much as actors reading a script. If the point of it was to to merely establish a mission statement for responsible journalism, why not be upfront that it's a sponsored message? Sinclair literally forces Local News affiliates to run certain stories & messages, and individual reporters are threatened with firing if they don't comply (see first post). These mandated stories & messages have been aligned with the White House's agenda — from the example video on "don't trust the media" to Deep State theories to being forced to air conservative op-eds from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump advisor (examples are in the John Oliver video). Again, these are all presented on Local News as being organic segments on the program; the fact that it is mandated from Sinclair is hidden. That is why people are upset. Sinclair has direct ties to the White House. So if you would be concerned about "Orwellian state-controlled media propaganda," then Sinclair's actions should be concerning. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-campaign-sinclair-broadcasting-jared-kushner-232764 Trump went to CNN for better coverage; was denied. Kushner and Sinclair make an agreement; both sides say totally normal, nothing different from any other network incentivizing a candidate for interviews. Then Trump ramps up his CNN fake news schtick around the time he strikes this "extended deal" with Sinclair, who were already known to be conservative-leaning and doing "must run" stories. So the message of Sinclair Local News affiliates doing the must run on "don't believe a lot of what you hear out there, but you can trust us, the reliable Local News" -- that sucks. We should expect better from presidents & journalists than gaslighting the public, this lame attempt at "don't believe anything you hear unless you hear it from me." It's ridiculous. The major obstacle to solving such a problem is the intense partisanship, as evidenced by most of the replies in this thread. This isn't even close to the same thing, B-Man. The Sinclair video shows actors reading a script, while pretending to still be your friendly Local News reporters. Your video shows CNN and MSNBC using the words "concerned" and "propaganda" talking about this story. Uhh, yeah? No sh*t? It is propaganda and it is concerning. The fact that you think this is somehow the same is exactly the partisan problem I'm referring to. Do you realize how stupid you are or do you just live in glee too low-Q to understand your deficiency? CNN has had more direct access to the white House than anyone and uses the US Government as a pipeline for their personalities. Ones that will hopefully hung for treason soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Cugalabanza said: So, congratulations, you are a poet! Exactly what I strive for. Arrogant and insulting is easy. Doing it with style, though... 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Exactly what I strive for. Arrogant and insulting is easy. Doing it with style, though... Your insults are about as stylish as disco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 9 minutes ago, garybusey said: Your insults are about as stylish as disco. That's right, they're retro! (Personally, I would have gone with "about as stylish as Motley Crue." But I can tell by the way you post your crap you're a simpleton, so shut your trap.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Exactly what I strive for. Arrogant and insulting is easy. Doing it with style, though... "You're an idiot" is more of a cudgel. Not much style to it. Edited April 4, 2018 by snafu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts