Media Tracker (1 Viewer)

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[SaintForLife]

Nope, it’s not the same, not even close. You have disingenuously combined two very different things in your statement above. You have lumped together context decisions and coverage decisions with outright lying.

It’s pretty amazing to have to explain this to an adult actually. Most kids can grasp the concept of lying pretty early in life. Yes, all news organizations have an editorial stance. They make decisions on what to cover and what to not cover. They also employ fact checkers and ethics departments to keep things as factual as they can.

Fox makes the decision every day to lie. To say things are true that they know are not true. They do it all the time. Remember Pizzagate? Obama birtherism? They make the decision to lie daily. They aren’t the only ones. NY Post does the same thing. So do a whole lot of sites. Quite a few of the people you follow on Twitter lie, or intentionally mislead all the time as well.

I have no idea what you are blathering about with your attempt at some sort of dig in the second part of your post. But I can assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about when you try to tell me what I like or don’t like, what I think, what I believe. You may as well quit trying, because you just invariably clown yourself.

Context and coverage decisions ? That's all it was? Not quite, but I know you will deny it no matter what. Here are two examples of dishonesty:



Fact checkers are a made up position just like disinformation experts. There's no degree or training that allows someone to determine what the truth is. Here's an example:

There you go again complaining about the people I post lying when you literally post Tweets from David Saddam had WMD Frum. Do you even think about the neocon liars you post before you accuse others?

You definitely tried to discredit Pulitzer Prize winning and 30 year investigative report at the NYT in Jeff Gerth.

Looking back on the coverage of Trump

<p>Seven and a half years ago, journalism began a tortured dance with Donald Trump, the man who would be the country’s forty-fifth president—first dismissing him, then embracing him as a source of ratings and clicks, then going all in on efforts to catalogue Trump as a threat to the country...

www.cjr.org

 

[MT15]

SFL, facts are facts. I cannot help it that it hurts your feelings that Fox has been exposed for lying. Not omitting something, not choosing to cover or not, but taking something that they know is a lie and choosing to say it anyway. And you cannot have your own version of the facts, no matter how many tweets you post, lol.

Fox will never be the same as the main stream media you have been conditioned to hate (by the same folks who lie to you about it). Fox “News” chooses to tell absolute lies. That is just a fact.

You quoting people about other issues is simply whataboutism. It makes zero difference.

 

[zztop]

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Did she just say that Biden did this? In 1990? Wow.

 

[SaintForLife]

SFL, facts are facts. I cannot help it that it hurts your feelings that Fox has been exposed for lying. Not omitting something, not choosing to cover or not, but taking something that they know is a lie and choosing to say it anyway. And you cannot have your own version of the facts, no matter how many tweets you post, lol.

Fox will never be the same as the main stream media you have been conditioned to hate (by the same folks who lie to you about it). Fox “News” chooses to tell absolute lies. That is just a fact.

You quoting people about other issues is simply whataboutism. It makes zero difference.

Did you notice I didn't defendant anything that Fox News did. I said all the corporate media(which includes Fox News) are liars and shouldn't be trusted. You can only focus on Fox News because you believe virtually everything from the NYT, Washington Post etc especially if they are talking glowingly about Biden.

You have been showed multiple instances of the corporate media media dishonest and yet you deflect and act like it's only Fox News.

Me showing how the NYT was dishonest "makes zero difference." Spoken like a Democratic partisan.

 

[zztop]

Did she just say that Biden did this? In 1990? Wow.

yeah lol. I guess it was one of those "alternative facts" they like to spew

 

[MT15]

Did you notice I didn't defendant anything that Fox News did. I said all the corporate media(which includes Fox News) are liars and shouldn't be trusted. You can only focus on Fox News because you believe virtually everything from the NYT, Washington Post etc especially if they are talking glowingly about Biden.

You have been showed multiple instances of the corporate media media dishonest and yet you deflect and act like it's only Fox News.

Me showing how the NYT was dishonest "makes zero difference." Spoken like a Democratic partisan.

No, you have never shown me anything like what Fox just did. No matter how many times you say something that doesn’t make it true. Similarly, just because you post the opinions of critics from Twitter that doesn’t make what they say true either.

So, show me the proof that MSM has decided to publish a story even though they knew it was wrong. With proof they knew it was wrong - not just someone‘s opinion. Let‘s use proof, okay?

What I am doing is the opposite of deflection, BTW. You are pushing a false equivalency and I am showing you why it is false.

Because MSM does get facts wrong sometimes, is not the same as Fox. They don’t have evidence that what they are saying is wrong and then go ahead and push the lie anyway.

That’s why all your examples and media critic opinions don’t matter. If they are telling you it’s the same, then you should be able to realize they are pushing a false equivalency and most probably have an axe to grind.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Booker]

My guess is those stations are all owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group.

 

[MT15]

That is supposedly from a John Oliver segment on Sinclair Broadcasting that’s a few years old. Still relevant. Viewable on YouTube based on the comments from the TikTok.

Problem is people in the comments were assuming this is mainstream media, and saying - see, they are all told what to say, don’t believe MSM.

 

[MT15]

Fox, specifically Tucker, still pumping out lies. On purpose.

 

[MT15]

Will enough of the media wake up and stop “both sides” ?

 

[RebSaint]

Is Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald part of this evil "Corporate Media" cabal that I keep reading about on this board?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[bird]

Is Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald part of this evil "Corporate Media" cabal that I keep reading about on this board?

I'll hang up and listen.

Well, yes and no. They became hacks enthralled by their own voices.

 

[brandon]

There's no degree or training that allows someone to determine what the truth is.

No, there absolutely forking is.

Anyone who has spent any time researching in academia has been trained on how to properly vet sources, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the source's argument, compare and contrast those sources against other sources in the field, and draw effective conclusions from those sources, while also being able to identify and define the weaknesses in their own arguments.

Just because you don't know how to vet a source doesn't mean no one does.

 

[RebSaint]

No, there absolutely forking is.

Anyone who has spent any time researching in academia has been trained on how to properly vet sources, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the source's argument, compare and contrast those sources against other sources in the field, and draw effective conclusions from those sources, while also being able to identify and define the weaknesses in their own arguments.

Just because you don't know how to vet a source doesn't mean no one does.

I know it must be shocking to you that someone who daily commits a litany of logical fallacies including, but not limited to: cherry picking, false equivalency, red herrings, ad hominem, the slippery slope, hasty generalizations, etc. wouldn't know how academics study history, philosophy, the law, or how any other discipline rigorously studies various topics.
I'm shocked at the ignorance of how basic argumentation works.

I mean, I'm just looking at your shocked face. See mine?

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Lapaz]

Did she just say that Biden did this? In 1990? Wow.

Republicans are worse about doing this, but partisans in general just pick a name of someone they think will anger their base, like Nancy Pelosi or Soros. It doesn't matter whether it's true, or whether the actions are even bad. The base hears the name and automatically associates negative connotations. You could say Nancy voted for XYZ little old lady to be helped across the street, or Soros donated money to sick kids, and negative connotations will be associated with it. It is so ignorant.