Macron figures out the media is the enemy of the people

[oldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  You are resorting to raw hysteria and gibberish.  

This is your standard response when you cannot defend your position.  Trump said that under Article 2 he could do whatever he wanted.  Obviously wrong, and a violation of his oath to defend the Constitution.  Do you or do you not think he wanted to be a dictator?

[wnyguy]

This whole world has gone completely bonkers. Anyone with 2 working brain cells can see that MSM has been not only biased, but complicit in fabricating stories that fit their agenda. Viva La France !

[RochesterRob]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

This is your standard response when you cannot defend your position.  Trump said that under Article 2 he could do whatever he wanted.  Obviously wrong, and a violation of his oath to defend the Constitution.  Do you or do you not think he wanted to be a dictator?

  There is no getting around hysteria and gibberish when it is on display which is most of the time around here.  If Trump wanted to be a dictator he would have muzzled the media and taken away weapons from the citizens a long time ago. So to answer your question, no, I don't believe Trump wants to be a dictator.

[Kemp]

17 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Everything has bias.  

 

 

Thank you for your contribution to the topic of this thread, "The Daily Wire is biased to the right."

 

There is bias.

 

There is lying.

 

You're welcome.

[US Egg]

Yeah, Howard Stern, that bastion of American truth telling, the voice of American sensibility..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[T master]

21 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Freedom of the press is a bedrock of our democracy.  Tear that down and you might as well pack it in.

 

Very true and i agree but when the lame stream media decides to put in personal opinions instead of facts and unbiased reporting it pretty lame .

 

To add when they decide what is news worthy to report repeatedly on fabrications such as a paid for dossier then decides (for 4 yrs i might add) then not to report on certain dealings of a family member of a prominent politician with a Communist country or countries that's when it gets even worse ! 

 

Welcome to the NWO .

[RochesterRob]

3 hours ago, T master said:

 

Very true and i agree but when the lame stream media decides to put in personal opinions instead of facts and unbiased reporting it pretty lame .

 

To add when they decide what is news worthy to report repeatedly on fabrications such as a paid for dossier then decides (for 4 yrs i might add) then not to report on certain dealings of a family member of a prominent politician with a Communist country or countries that's when it gets even worse ! 

 

Welcome to the NWO .

  To talk to OMF is to talk to the wall or some other inanimate object.  

[TBBills]

On 11/17/2020 at 11:49 AM, RochesterRob said:

  Nah, I'd rather take out the trash and be done with it.

That is why Biden won to take out the trash.

[Big Blitz]

 

Oh my God!

 

No word on Daily Beast reporting on the Muslim beheading of a teacher in France.  

 

But this new Christian Congressman seems like a lunatic.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Big Blitz

[TBBills]

13 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Oh my God!

 

No word on Daily Beast reporting on the Muslim beheading of a teacher in France.  

 

But this new Christian Congressman seems like a lunatic.

DO you look for weird twitter posts on the DEEP TWITTER? lol

Edited November 18, 2020 by TBBills

[WideNine]

I can get behind the notion of more responsible reporting of left-leaning media outlets, but that cuts both ways. Folks can also acknowledge the dangerous partisan slant and conspiracy spreading of conservative outlets like FoxNews, Breitbart, and others.

 

As responsible citizens we need to better understand what is "news" and what is "sensationalism" driven by the desire to promote clicks and ad revenue. That means taking some time and precautions to be critical thinkers and to allow for fact-checking. Whether it is a CNN article irresponsibly stirring racial tensions with attention-grabbing news headlines that seem geared towards encouraging and fomenting racial division while generating ad revenue and clicks, or FoxNews encouraging folks to irresponsibly rise up against valid pandemic precautions.

 

Both of these I would consider poor examples of true news reporting and should convince folks to focus a bit more on objective or at least moderate left or right leaning news platforms, and to be sure to fact-check against the more slanted media outlets using those more objective outlets.

 

Regardless of how shabby an organization is in actually responsibly reporting news, a free press is imperative for a democracy and should be protected. We should never fall prey to blanket statements that lead towards or imply the need to restrict or censor the press... that is the road that all dictators take to control their populace. If you want to censor a news media outlet, then you can exercise that right by simply not visiting or consuming their product.

 

The hypocrisy of the US towards other nations and their dictators censoring and attacking the free press:

https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-condemns-the-ortega-regimes-attack-on-the-free-press/

 

The late John McCain on media attacks and censorship in the US by Trump:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mccain-idUSKBN15Y07R

 

 

Why Trump attacks any media that does not support his agendas:

Foreign policy experts and political scientists have observed this technique of removing trustworthy sources of information, and have noted it is one regularly employed by despots. Brian Klaas, the author of The Despot’s Accomplice: How the West is Aiding and Abetting the decline of Democracy has argued that president Trump is using the same techniques as authoritarian leaders.

 

Writing for Vice, Klaas stated:

• First, in order to roll back democratic checks, despots must blur the lines between truth and falsehood.
  • This makes it difficult to ascertain who to trust in times of crisis. 

•  Second, but relatedly, Trump is doing what despots do best—attacking the media for actual accurate reporting.
  • The aim is to discredit the traditional sources of information, and leave citizens unsure who to trust, and what to believe.The disorientation allows the governing class to remain in power, with their power unchecked by scrutiny. It does not matter if the public does not believe the nation's leader, what matters is they don't believe the voices contradicting the leader, either.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by WideNine

[dickleyjones]

i am sad to report there does not seem to be a sane person among you. 

 

the "other side" are either nazis or communists - gimme a break.

 

macron can be right about some things. trump can be right about some things. heck, people you hate can be right about some things. how that is not obvious is beyond me.

 

your hatred is blinding you. ALL of you.

[aristocrat]

On 11/17/2020 at 10:02 AM, Tiberius said:

Do you think it's just like state run media in China or the Soviet Union now? Is that your stand? lol 

I would say our news networks have become state run for their parties.  

[Niagara Bill]

On 11/17/2020 at 12:16 PM, RochesterRob said:

  There is no getting around hysteria and gibberish when it is on display which is most of the time around here.  If Trump wanted to be a dictator he would have muzzled the media and taken away weapons from the citizens a long time ago. So to answer your question, no, I don't believe Trump wants to be a dictator.

Yes he does and soon we shall see if he has the support and guts.

He has military, he has militia, he has half population, he has socialists to blame, he has a pandemic  to distract, he has courts, he has divided country, he has the ego, he has CIA and FBI, he has election distraction and he has big support behind him including an organization that Rhino belongs to.

2 months and we shall see. 

[WideNine]

3 hours ago, dickleyjones said:

i am sad to report there does not seem to be a sane person among you. 

 

the "other side" are either nazis or communists - gimme a break.

 

macron can be right about some things. trump can be right about some things. heck, people you hate can be right about some things. how that is not obvious is beyond me.

 

your hatred is blinding you. ALL of you.

 

ok.......

 

thanks for stopping by, I guess - and posting your "sane" rant with its blanket statements. There's irony in this somewhere, if I just look hard enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calm down everybody!!!

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by WideNine

[dickleyjones]

46 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

ok.......

 

thanks for stopping by, I guess - and posting your "sane" rant with its blanket statements. There's irony in this somewhere, if I just look hard enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calm down everybody!!!

 

 

 

Just telling it like it is, this thread in particular. Thankfully most people are fine.

[WideNine]

25 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

Just telling it like it is, this thread in particular. Thankfully most people are fine.

 

Just trying to caution against using blanket phrases like, "there is not a sane person among you" and your hatred is "blinding all of you". An easy way to lose credibility, or any debate, or your intended audience is to target others with accusations that include or imply "always", "everyone", "never", etc.. You learn these things when you go to counseling with an angry teenager.

 

Sure there are polar rants here, but the invitation is open too for some folks that share in this forum if they have the capacity and willingness to debate the points and merits of their positions rather than just slinging mud... I take the mud slinging with a grain of salt because there are times it is just funny.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 hours ago, WideNine said:

I can get behind the notion of more responsible reporting of left-leaning media outlets, but that cuts both ways. Folks can also acknowledge the dangerous partisan slant and conspiracy spreading of conservative outlets like FoxNews, Breitbart, and others.

 

As responsible citizens we need to better understand what is "news" and what is "sensationalism" driven by the desire to promote clicks and ad revenue. That means taking some time and precautions to be critical thinkers and to allow for fact-checking. Whether it is a CNN article irresponsibly stirring racial tensions with attention-grabbing news headlines that seem geared towards encouraging and fomenting racial division while generating ad revenue and clicks, or FoxNews encouraging folks to irresponsibly rise up against valid pandemic precautions.

 

Both of these I would consider poor examples of true news reporting and should convince folks to focus a bit more on objective or at least moderate left or right leaning news platforms, and to be sure to fact-check against the more slanted media outlets using those more objective outlets.

 

Regardless of how shabby an organization is in actually responsibly reporting news, a free press is imperative for a democracy and should be protected. We should never fall prey to blanket statements that lead towards or imply the need to restrict or censor the press... that is the road that all dictators take to control their populace. If you want to censor a news media outlet, then you can exercise that right by simply not visiting or consuming their product.

 

The hypocrisy of the US towards other nations and their dictators censoring and attacking the free press:

https://www.state.gov/the-united-states-condemns-the-ortega-regimes-attack-on-the-free-press/

 

The late John McCain on media attacks and censorship in the US by Trump:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mccain-idUSKBN15Y07R

 

 

Why Trump attacks any media that does not support his agendas:

Foreign policy experts and political scientists have observed this technique of removing trustworthy sources of information, and have noted it is one regularly employed by despots. Brian Klaas, the author of The Despot’s Accomplice: How the West is Aiding and Abetting the decline of Democracy has argued that president Trump is using the same techniques as authoritarian leaders.

 

Writing for Vice, Klaas stated:

• First, in order to roll back democratic checks, despots must blur the lines between truth and falsehood.
  • This makes it difficult to ascertain who to trust in times of crisis. 

•  Second, but relatedly, Trump is doing what despots do best—attacking the media for actual accurate reporting.
  • The aim is to discredit the traditional sources of information, and leave citizens unsure who to trust, and what to believe.The disorientation allows the governing class to remain in power, with their power unchecked by scrutiny. It does not matter if the public does not believe the nation's leader, what matters is they don't believe the voices contradicting the leader, either.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that the “free press” is not necessarily free, nor press.   I don’t agree with DJT on the “enemy of the people” comment, but I strongly believe that media types are often the enemy of accurate information.  
 

I’ve tried to pay attention to the business side of reporting—driven by advertising and circulation, appealing to a certain crowd that has certain biases.  I try to pay particular attention to the use of anonymous sources, and have had lengthy and often hostile debate about verification and trustworthiness of such sources.   As a former journalism student, I understand the need to protect some sources, but the danger of blind trust in journalists using anonymous sources is extremely troubling to me.  
 

To boot, having had some media training, it’s important to note that not all stories are created equally.  There are friendly interviews, hostile interviews, blind interviews, stories that are copied/clipped and pasted out of context—-all under the guise of “trust the free and independent press!”.  

 

One of the more frequently used techniques is for a reporter or journalist to report on a story interpreting what was said/done using words or phrases specifically for effect. This allows for the appearance of neutral reporting while there is a substantial effort to shape the narrative.  

 

That doesn’t work for me anymore. So, I seek out alternate source, attempt to cross reference where possible, and routinely disregard anonymous sources as it relates to controversial stories about DJT.  

 

[WideNine]

19 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The problem is that the “free press” is not necessarily free, nor press.   I don’t agree with DJT on the “enemy of the people” comment, but I strongly believe that media types are often the enemy of accurate information.  
 

I’ve tried to pay attention to the business side of reporting—driven by advertising and circulation, appealing to a certain crowd that has certain biases.  I try to pay particular attention to the use of anonymous sources, and have had lengthy and often hostile debate about verification and trustworthiness of such sources.   As a former journalism student, I understand the need to protect some sources, but the danger of blind trust in journalists using anonymous sources is extremely troubling to me.  
 

To boot, having had some media training, it’s important to note that not all stories are created equally.  There are friendly interviews, hostile interviews, blind interviews, stories that are copied/clipped and pasted out of context—-all under the guise of “trust the free and independent press!”.  

 

One of the more frequently used techniques is for a reporter or journalist to report on a story interpreting what was said/done using words or phrases specifically for effect. This allows for the appearance of neutral reporting while there is a substantial effort to shape the narrative.  

 

That doesn’t work for me anymore. So, I seek out alternate source, attempt to cross reference where possible, and routinely disregard anonymous sources as it relates to controversial stories about DJT.  

 

 

I think you proved my point regarding critical thinking being a requirement for those absorbing what passes for news and journalism these days.

 

Being critical of the press and fact-checking does not make them "the enemy", nor is friction with our leaders a new thing in this democracy. I believe that at one point Thomas Jefferson railed against the press. But politicians hate the press because they often shine the public light on the things politicians would prefer to keep in the dark. They are a necessity for a democracy to keep governments in check.

 

Social media now blurs that "news" line with tweets and posts from influential sources that are passed along as if they are actually vetted news material. It's a mixed bag, but know and understand the source and do your own vetting. It is a buyer beware environment.

 

There are defamation laws that apply to social media, and considering the sheer volume of falsehoods tweeted out I am surprised we do not see more high profile lawsuits. One cannot simply hide behind "it was my opinion", or maybe it's because this is fairly recent legal territory where there is a lack of precedent...not sure.

 

I have always held the opinion that journalist who are great interviewers are not necessarily combative, but they do not shy away or sugar-coat the tough questions. Some like Woodward cozy up and get leaders to say things they should never admit to in passing and certainly not on tape. It is like he ooozes some kind of truth serum instead of questions.

 

If a controversial figure is worth interviewing, it is worth making them a bit uncomfortable.

 

 

[Tiberius]

On 11/17/2020 at 12:12 PM, wnyguy said:

This whole world has gone completely bonkers. Anyone with 2 working brain cells can see that MSM has been not only biased, but complicit in fabricating stories that fit their agenda. Viva La France !

LOL, fabricating what stories?