Media Tracker (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
1,452
Location
Madisonville
Offline
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?
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,423
Reaction score
3,896
Age
40
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
I could make the same argument that liberals or left-wingers online do the same damn thing you accuse Farb of doing and have fellow like-minded posters on message boards similar to these virtue-signaling too? As well as saying conservatives replying to politically-themed videos or blogs on YouTube or other social media websites criticizing them as being oversimplified or one-sided as "being snowflakes".

Ive actually watched some of British left-wing investigative journalist John Pilger documentaries , especially the one.when he gave soft ball questions to controversial Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his ram-shackled handling of what was once one of South America's strongest, growing economies. His films are horribly, pathetically one-sided and biased.
I think a lot of people have problems with getting upset over very petty things. MT15 may have been a little over the top there, but I do find the outrage machine just tiresome. Maybe like how you may have found the liberal "hyperventilating" media to be just too much the previous 4 years.

Also, this thread is about Media mistakes, right? So, why are we even talking about AOC? Not enough bad journalism to pick at?
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
I think a lot of people have problems with getting upset over very petty things. MT15 may have been a little over the top there, but I do find the outrage machine just tiresome. Maybe like how you may have found the liberal "hyperventilating" media to be just too much the previous 4 years.

Also, this thread is about Media mistakes, right? So, why are we even talking about AOC? Not enough bad journalism to pick at?
Well, the crazy thing is is that I voted and still solidly support Joe Biden and his administration. I think, all in all, he's done a remarkable job especially with the nationally, far better federally coordinated Covid-19 response. I read an article that CDC projects that by early August, 50-60% of Americans will be fully vaccinated, I sincerely hope we reach that goal by the 4th of July albeit if that's an unlikely, unrealistic scenario.

I honestly think some MSM outlets like CNN are over-analyzing, and overreacting to issues or news stories that 5-6 years ago wouldn't attracted much scrutiny or attention pre-Trump but because Trump's media antics, almost effortless ability to manipulate public opinion, views on national/foreign issues and attracting publicity over over-the-top comments made by him knowing media pundits will analyze it, irregardless of whether he was being serious or not.

Trump made CNN, in particular, a lot of money and arguably helped elevate quite a few of their media commentators, pundits careers critiquing, making passionate, heartfelt denials, condemnations of his actions, words, policies over the past 4 years. Now, that he's gone and politics is more back to seeming more normal and boring(God, people don't ever complain about boring politics again), CNN's ratings are falling flatter then barely-tuned guitars and business isn't good so lets try and focus on sensational, edgy partisan issues designed to create discussion.
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,423
Reaction score
3,896
Age
40
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
Well, the crazy thing is is that I voted and still solidly support Joe Biden and his administration. I think, all in all, he's done a remarkable job especially with the nationally, far better federally coordinated Covid-19 response. I read an article that CDC projects that by early August, 50-60% of Americans will be fully vaccinated, I sincerely hope we reach that goal by the 4th of July albeit if that's an unlikely, unrealistic scenario.

I honestly think some MSM outlets like CNN are over-analyzing, and overreacting to issues or news stories that 5-6 years ago wouldn't attracted much scrutiny or attention pre-Trump but because Trump's media antics, almost effortless ability to manipulate public opinion, views on national/foreign issues and attracting publicity over over-the-top comments made by him knowing media pundits will analyze it, irregardless of whether he was being serious or not.

Trump made CNN, in particular, a lot of money and arguably helped elevate quite a few of their media commentators, pundits careers critiquing, making passionate, heartfelt denials, condemnations of his actions, words, policies over the past 4 years. Now, that he's gone and politics is more back to seeming more normal and boring(God, people don't ever complain about boring politics again), CNN's ratings are falling flatter then barely-tuned guitars and business isn't good so lets try and focus on sensational, edgy partisan issues designed to create discussion.
Yes, overall, I find most of our national media to be overly, nit picky most of the time.
 

JRad

I'm not a cat
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
918
Reaction score
1,392
Age
37
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
Well, the crazy thing is is that I voted and still solidly support Joe Biden and his administration. I think, all in all, he's done a remarkable job especially with the nationally, far better federally coordinated Covid-19 response. I read an article that CDC projects that by early August, 50-60% of Americans will be fully vaccinated, I sincerely hope we reach that goal by the 4th of July albeit if that's an unlikely, unrealistic scenario.

I honestly think some MSM outlets like CNN are over-analyzing, and overreacting to issues or news stories that 5-6 years ago wouldn't attracted much scrutiny or attention pre-Trump but because Trump's media antics, almost effortless ability to manipulate public opinion, views on national/foreign issues and attracting publicity over over-the-top comments made by him knowing media pundits will analyze it, irregardless of whether he was being serious or not.

Trump made CNN, in particular, a lot of money and arguably helped elevate quite a few of their media commentators, pundits careers critiquing, making passionate, heartfelt denials, condemnations of his actions, words, policies over the past 4 years. Now, that he's gone and politics is more back to seeming more normal and boring(God, people don't ever complain about boring politics again), CNN's ratings are falling flatter then barely-tuned guitars and business isn't good so lets try and focus on sensational, edgy partisan issues designed to create discussion.
I know this wasn’t really the point you were trying to make, but I would be perfectly fine with news outlets that rely on sensationalism to go ahead and fade away. Or at least just report the damn news - facts aren’t partisan.

But 24 hour news cycle means you have to jam this objective/opinion stuff in there, and well, here we are.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,516
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
Thanks for that. I follow her on Instagram, but miss about 90% of what she puts out there, since I'm not in NYC.

Ok, well, we're talking about the Media, not politicians. I happen to disagree with her, but I understand her point. However, I just don't take 'surge' as only meaning a military surge. Actually, the first thought I have is of a water surge.

So, maybe Farb can go back to his issue with the AP that I thought I gave some thoughtful feedback on vs jumping to the next random outrage.

Aren't you tired of always being angry?
I vote feigned outrage.
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
I know this wasn’t really the point you were trying to make, but I would be perfectly fine with news outlets that rely on sensationalism to go ahead and fade away. Or at least just report the damn news - facts aren’t partisan.

But 24 hour news cycle means you have to jam this objective/opinion stuff in there, and well, here we are.
I suppose its an acceptance or a realization of getting bit older, more mature, but I would like to believe most Americans would prefer boring, mundane news media that reports and gives insightful, decisive analysis from experts, not partisan hacks spewing ideologically recycled rhetoric or drivel thats been carefully, or recklessly re-packaged, improved or added on to in a piecemeal fashion with technological enhancements.

International news media outlets like DW, BBC, Canal +, hell I'll even include Al-Jazeera international news division does a better, more nuanced informative job in discussing complex, rapidly-evolving or emerging issues like the bloody, violent crackdown by the ruling Myanmar military junta on peaceful protesters which has killed as far as I know so far(and God only knows, it could and probably is higher, 500 people) with no humanitarian or diplomatic solution in sight. The Myanmar junta's ruling political party near-two month crackdown makes the BLM protests after the George Floyd killing in Minneapolis seem like a church picnic, by comparison.

Do most Americans know or are even aware that Lebanon is getting closer to being ungovernable and unraveling like a failed state and a possible Syrian-like humanitarian problem/disaster with its economy in freefall and their gimcrack form of parliamentary system that was enacted back in 1993 to end a near two decade long sectarian civil war is largely to blame?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,263
Reaction score
7,129
Location
Midwest
Offline
I think a lot of people have problems with getting upset over very petty things. MT15 may have been a little over the top there, but I do find the outrage machine just tiresome. Maybe like how you may have found the liberal "hyperventilating" media to be just too much the previous 4 years.

Also, this thread is about Media mistakes, right? So, why are we even talking about AOC? Not enough bad journalism to pick at?
It was a sarcastic post, so it was meant to be over the top. It was in response to Farb’s idea that mainly it’s the left that changes language or uses language meant to “other” the opposition. And that the right hardly does it.

Everyone is quick to see faults in others but slow to recognize their own faults. It’s worth pointing it out.

Also, I’m not sure Bill Maher is far right, is he?
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
1,013
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52993306#:~:text=The American dictionary Merriam-Webster,a reference to systemic oppression.


Kennedy Mitchum, a recent graduate of Drake University in Iowa, suggested that the definition should include a reference to systemic oppression.
An editor then responded, later agreeing to update their definition.
The decision comes amid international anti-racism protests after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Floyd died after a white police officer held a knee on his neck for nearly nine minutes.
Ms Mitchum had encountered people pointing to the dictionary to prove that they were not racist because of the way they felt towards people of colour. She felt the definition needed to reflect broader issues of racial inequality in society.



https://justthenews.com/nation/cult...w-meaning-color-blind-says-it-can-show-racism


It has spent the past year or so on a large-scale review of race, gender and sexuality vocabulary, because such words are "shifting in meaning" more often than American language in general, she said.

Asked why the dictionary added an explanatory note instead of a full-on redefinition of "color-blind," Brewster said Merriam-Webster was "not afraid of changing definitions" but determined the note was sufficient. Since last fall, the company extensively revised race-related entries, publishing new definitions of "black," "brown" and "white" in January, she said.



Yes, I care about the meaing the words. Hard to have meaningful conversations when the meaning are changed to reflect one political side more than another. Speaking of, has there been a change to a word based on the rights feelings? There might be but I am having a hard time thinking of one.

edit: checked the definition of 'boy' and 'girl' and they have not been politically updated yet. I think they are changed by the end of the summer. Bets?
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
1,709
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52993306#:~:text=The American dictionary Merriam-Webster,a reference to systemic oppression.


Kennedy Mitchum, a recent graduate of Drake University in Iowa, suggested that the definition should include a reference to systemic oppression.
An editor then responded, later agreeing to update their definition.
The decision comes amid international anti-racism protests after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Floyd died after a white police officer held a knee on his neck for nearly nine minutes.
Ms Mitchum had encountered people pointing to the dictionary to prove that they were not racist because of the way they felt towards people of colour. She felt the definition needed to reflect broader issues of racial inequality in society.



https://justthenews.com/nation/cult...w-meaning-color-blind-says-it-can-show-racism


It has spent the past year or so on a large-scale review of race, gender and sexuality vocabulary, because such words are "shifting in meaning" more often than American language in general, she said.

Asked why the dictionary added an explanatory note instead of a full-on redefinition of "color-blind," Brewster said Merriam-Webster was "not afraid of changing definitions" but determined the note was sufficient. Since last fall, the company extensively revised race-related entries, publishing new definitions of "black," "brown" and "white" in January, she said.



Yes, I care about the meaing the words. Hard to have meaningful conversations when the meaning are changed to reflect one political side more than another. Speaking of, has there been a change to a word based on the rights feelings? There might be but I am having a hard time thinking of one.

edit: checked the definition of 'boy' and 'girl' and they have not been politically updated yet. I think they are changed by the end of the summer. Bets?
So I guess you don’t think it is silly.

So if people believe that a word has become a dog whistle, or that it passively promotes oppression, then they should stand up against those words, because words matter.
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
It was a sarcastic post, so it was meant to be over the top. It was in response to Farb’s idea that mainly it’s the left that changes language or uses language meant to “other” the opposition. And that the right hardly does it.

Everyone is quick to see faults in others but slow to recognize their own faults. It’s worth pointing it out.

Also, I’m not sure Bill Maher is far right, is he?
I was being a bit facetious in how Bill Maher has criticized, quite openly, on his show some of the more extreme, overreaching aspects of "cancel culture" that's arisen in recent years, especially in the immediate aftermath of global "MeToo movement where several well-known TV and movie celebrities, U.S. senators, congressman, famous legendary actors, directors were accused of past sexual harassment, supposed lewd or distasteful comments,.gestures, words, inappropriate sexualized contact that were brought up, raised or made by actresses, associates who worked or knew them and the larger sense of public outrage made any and every claim of sexual harassment or abuse seemingly, inherently true without giving some of these same celebrities due process legally and in some of these cases, it was later discovered that the allegations were fictitious, wildly exaggerated, distorted, or never fully substantiated if they were true or not. Some of the women who accused these celebrities later retracted their statements or amended them to say their original claims were manipulated by others for attention or fame, and a few others admitted they just flat-out lied.

I think one of the few things me and Maher probably agree in in terms of our moral/ethical philosophies is our irrational dislike of outright ideological bullshirt that we perceive going on from individual politicians who try peddling it as part of this larger self-righteous, holier-than-thou, or more cleverly articulated, well-meaning bullshirt variety that packages itself as altruistic and beneficial when its really just another form of vindictive, petty political settling of scores masked behind this veneer of social justice and partisan politics. Never let a good controversy go to waste, even if its entirely an artificially created, superficial one you largely helped create, exacerbate or distort.


We cancel you out if we don't like or agree with how we interpret some aspects of what you're saying or parts or maybe references one makes or infers as part of discussion on political or social issues. Legitimate criticism of Israel is perfectly acceptable of its domestic/foreign policy issues, actions, or governing parties as long as the rhetoric doesnt include vague, subtle, or overt Antisemitic references, words, phrases, or maybe giving back hand praise to politicians, activists or NGOs who have past ties to violent, Islamic fundamentalist groups Hamas, and Hezbollah. If one opposes abortion strenuously, we exhaustively cherry-pick his past for controversial remarks or deeds, and we find a way to shut him up by arguing or insinuating he's a sexist, mysognist who wants to keep women as second-class citizens with no fundamental economic or political rights ala Christian fundamentalist dystopia run Republic of Offred in a Handmaid's Tale Netflix series adaptation of Margaret Atwood's novels.
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,423
Reaction score
3,896
Age
40
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
I was being a bit facetious in how Bill Maher has criticized, quite openly, on his show some of the more extreme, overreaching aspects of "cancel culture" that's arisen in recent years, especially in the immediate aftermath of global "MeToo movement where several well-known TV and movie celebrities, U.S. senators, congressman, famous legendary actors, directors were accused of past sexual harassment, supposed lewd or distasteful comments,.gestures, words, inappropriate sexualized contact that were brought up, raised or made by actresses, associates who worked or knew them and the larger sense of public outrage made any and every claim of sexual harassment or abuse seemingly, inherently true without giving some of these same celebrities due process legally and in some of these cases, it was later discovered that the allegations were fictitious, wildly exaggerated, distorted, or never fully substantiated if they were true or not. Some of the women who accused these celebrities later retracted their statements or amended them to say their original claims were manipulated by others for attention or fame, and a few others admitted they just flat-out lied.

I think one of the few things me and Maher probably agree in in terms of our moral/ethical philosophies is our irrational dislike of outright ideological bullshirt that we perceive going on from individual politicians who try peddling it as part of this larger self-righteous, holier-than-thou, or more cleverly articulated, well-meaning bullshirt variety that packages itself as altruistic and beneficial when its really just another form of vindictive, petty political settling of scores masked behind this veneer of social justice and partisan politics. Never let a good controversy go to waste, even if its entirely an artificially created, superficial one you largely helped create, exacerbate or distort.


We cancel you out if we don't like or agree with how we interpret some aspects of what you're saying or parts or maybe references one makes or infers as part of discussion on political or social issues. Legitimate criticism of Israel is perfectly acceptable of its domestic/foreign policy issues, actions, or governing parties as long as the rhetoric doesnt include vague, subtle, or overt Antisemitic references, words, phrases, or maybe giving back hand praise to politicians, activists or NGOs who have past ties to violent, Islamic fundamentalist groups Hamas, and Hezbollah. If one opposes abortion strenuously, we exhaustively cherry-pick his past for controversial remarks or deeds, and we find a way to shut him up by arguing or insinuating he's a sexist, mysognist who wants to keep women as second-class citizens with no fundamental economic or political rights ala Christian fundamentalist dystopia run Republic of Offred in a Handmaid's Tale Netflix series adaptation of Margaret Atwood's novels.
It makes me think of something I said to my kid last year after the George Floyd murder and the protests / riots that broke out.

A lot of people want to vent and voice their frustrations. But what comes next? You can build change or new policy by just yelling at people. That's just how you get attention. Now that you have attention, what do you do with it?

his age group (19ish) knows how to be heard. They just don't always know how to listen and build a coalition to make change.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,263
Reaction score
7,129
Location
Midwest
Offline
Please, Farb, nobody has ever said it’s only right wingers who boycott. You’re being completely disingenuous with that garbage. Right wingers, however, have bitched and moaned about cancel culture being only a left wing thing. It has been pointed out that the right wing loves themselves some boycotts, but that is far from saying it’s only them that do it.

It does seem to be only them, though, who think it’s not fair when they are the target while boycotting everyone they feel like boycotting.
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
151
Reaction score
71
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
Please, Farb, nobody has ever said it’s only right wingers who boycott. You’re being completely disingenuous with that garbage. Right wingers, however, have bitched and moaned about cancel culture being only a left wing thing. It has been pointed out that the right wing loves themselves some boycotts, but that is far from saying it’s only them that do it.

It does seem to be only them, though, who think it’s not fair when they are the target while boycotting everyone they feel like boycotting.
MT15, this question is more of a general, philosophical question that touches on the essential basics of this topic of boycotts, but Ive often felt that in terms of professional sports teams, college teams, or politicizing Olympics over one's country answer to a rival or fellow superpower nation's controversial decision regarding a certain domestic/foreign policy--in the modern sense, I believe this dilemma began with Carter's decision to boycott 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow in protest over what he deemed was an illegal, unsubstantiated invasion of Afghanistan by Soviets in December 1979.

Its impossible, even for me as an historian, to try and accurately reassert myself back into that day and age to convincingly argue whether it was the right decision, from a pragmatic standpoint. USA Olympic team were the ones who lost the most in terms of individual and competitive team glory, monetary endorsements, trying to insert themselves on to a bigger sports media stage afterwards and the 1980 Moscow Olympics pretty much ended being seen as a sham, one-sided, uncompetitive series of events where the medals won might as well been worthless.

I remember several years ago in 2013 when the Ukraine/Crimean secessionist crisis was going on and Vladimir Putin was making waves again pissing off NATO, UN, and US forces by overtly interfering in and obstructing the complex nature of events going on there, everyone's attention all of a sudden turned to "Well, are we going to see a repeat of 1980 Summer Olympics boycott in Sochi next year?" Some EU countries, like Germany, UK, even France were threatening to pull out of participation of IOC if the Crimean/Ukraine situation wasn't resolved diplomatically (it wasn't in the end, but that's life for you) and the Russian IOC Sochi organizers were pleading with the international media, ESPN, Fox Sports, CNN not to politicize and ruin the potential, competitive integrity and reputation of the 2014 Olympic Games, a former Russian NBA All-Star player(one of the main Sochi promoters and organizers) said rightfully, IMO, that when he watched the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow as a young boy, he and his parents feelings were sort of like it was a waste of time and precious resources to not have all of the world's most competitive athletes in all fields participating from all countries. Hundreds of athletes, trainers, coaches, workers, managers work and invest so much time, mental and physical energy training, preparing, building stadiums, arenas, weight rooms, locker rooms, monitoring and maintaining logistics to creating what will hopefully be the greatest sporting event in modern history up to that point and then all that hard work and planning is blown up in everyone's collective faces.


My question: do you think President Jimmy Carter's decision for USA Olympic team to boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow was a prudent, practical move? Morally and ethically, I believe Carter's decision was wholly consistent with his pledges to try and uphold human rights as an issue in dealing with allies and enemies, alike. Turns out, that dogged adherence and persistence to that cause cost him enormously politically when it came to allowing the exiled Shah into the nation for cancer treatment even though his National Security Advisor,. CIA intelligence station chief, and members of his own cabinet warned him doing so might provoke blowback with Iranian student radicals storming our embassy and taking our staff there hostage.
 

GMRfellowtraveller

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,118
Reaction score
1,448
Age
54
Location
new orleans
Offline
It makes me think of something I said to my kid last year after the George Floyd murder and the protests / riots that broke out.

A lot of people want to vent and voice their frustrations. But what comes next? You can build change or new policy by just yelling at people. That's just how you get attention. Now that you have attention, what do you do with it?

his age group (19ish) knows how to be heard. They just don't always know how to listen and build a coalition to make change.
You say that like it’s a generational fault and not that the Status Quo is specifically designed to undermine efforts at change/progress
 

bird

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
26
Reaction score
18
Age
64
Location
OH
Offline
Sigh. “Cancel culture” is a bullschlitz term meaning nothing. It is used to express faux outrage over what conservatives fear which is change that threatens to upset the existing power structure.

You want some cancel culture? How about we blow up the monument to traitors on Stone Mountain?

As for corporations, well, they are held to be persons (although they are not) and thus the opinions expressed by the management (allegedly the “brain“ of said person although that is very iffy) are no less allowable than anyone else’s. The only reason that the right is griping about Delta et al is that they have been caught creating a crisis over something that only exists because the Velveeta Vulgarian screamed that it existed.

Words and actions have consequences. Those consequences sometimes happen quickly and sometimes over a longer time frame. Whining about cancel culture is whining about consequences.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,516
Reaction score
1,833
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Offline
You say that like it’s a generational fault and not that the Status Quo is specifically designed to undermine efforts at change/progress
I think it's both. The status quo and efforts at change have always had tension. It ebbs and flows. I don't think it's a unique problem. Sometimes the status quo wins the day, sometimes change agents do.
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,423
Reaction score
3,896
Age
40
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
You say that like it’s a generational fault and not that the Status Quo is specifically designed to undermine efforts at change/progress
Bit of both.

My issue is that often once the kids get heard, they think they won. They don't often keep up the long game, and are also often condescending, so they shoot themselves in the foot.

Just because I see where they need to generally improve doesn't mean I support the opposite. Kind of an odd reaction.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom