If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Daily Wire reporting that CNN even blackmailed the wrong guy.
Not only did they breach all tenets of journalism here, they did it to the wrong guy
It was buzzfeed that first figured out they busted the wrong guy, actually. They figured out that someone took a longer clip of the same shot, with sound in it (HanAssholedSolo's gif didn't have sound, obviously) and basically duplicated the original that was posted to reddit, but with better quality. This isn't uncommon, people often remake popular memes.
Anyway. Yes, CNN has not only revealed that it's the shittiest name in news and corrupt at their core, but they're also so ****ing incompetent that they ended up blackmailing the wrong person. I'm glad they're being destroyed, good riddance.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Jul 6, 2017, 04:12 PM
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
If alive, Jesus wouldn't be a Dem, he'd never be pro-choice. By the same token, he'd never be a Repub because of the death penalty. Likely he'd be classical libertarian, if anything.
The early church as described in Acts sure doesn't sound very libertarian at all.
Surely the church has far too many rules for libertarians. I know modern Christians ignore the vast majority of them anyway, but still.
JC could be conditionally pro-choice, depends on his understanding of and respect for science. If anyone is gonna know the exact moment a clump of cells gets its soul, its probably the son of god who is also god himself. Or maybe he'd shock everyone and declare you can kill 'em any time right up until they've been baptised because they aren't official Christians until then and non-Christians are expendable.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I can't help but shake my head at the non-religious and laugh as they stumble around with it all. I thought about trying to argue with the ones here, but I'm fresh out of pearls.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You misunderstand. This doesn't mean that I advocate not being empathetic or being robotic about our humanity and emotions. I meant this in the context of abortion and in an abstract way...
There are so many questions here:
- how animals we eat are treated (note: I'm not a vegetarian, and I realize that animals favor their own species, but obviously people do question to what extent a human life is more valuable than a chicken's life)
- quality of life questions (of which there are many, Terry Schaivo, etc.)
- death penalty questions
But more than this, nature is brutal, right? Sometimes people are born with crazy deformaties, deficiencies, etc. A grizzly bear has no problems with taking your life pretty quickly, there are some terrible diseases, etc.
Don't you ever wonder if maybe we aren't as special as our emotions make us feel we are, and maybe we are just a mass of cells? Why should we protect every single new life at all costs? I don't know if I'd want to live if I was paralyzed, forced to deal with great mental anguish, etc. Don't you ever think that maybe sometimes it makes sense to think of life in a more brutal way?
I struggle with all of these questions like anybody else, don't get me wrong... My Dad will die soon, I know I'm going to be a mess when he does, I realize that one can't look at these questions in the absence of emotions, but sometimes I think that maybe humans need a little more balance here somehow.
This is what happens when you run all-negative, all the time, while being mired in lies and accusations of heavy bias. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Biased? Oh yeah. All negative? No. To say Fox is nearly as negative as CNN has been, of late, is ignorant.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Jul 7, 2017, 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Biased? Oh yeah. All negative? No. To say Fox is nearly as negative as CNN has been, of late, is ignorant.
But like...by what measure? What numbers? How are you rating negativity? Otherwise it's just you making unsubstantiated claims about qualitative properties of the potential views of an abstract group of people.
But like...by what measure? What numbers? How are you rating negativity? Otherwise it's just you making unsubstantiated claims about qualitative properties of the potential views of an abstract group of people.
Unsubstantiated? Just stick with words that you understand (it's cute that you try to sound like an authority, though). I showed you the numbers, CNN's viewership has dropped off a cliff and it started when they decided to wage war on Trump. As more of their advertisers pull out and the company dies, it'll send a clear message that making up stories isn't journalism.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Unsubstantiated? Just stick with words that you understand (it's cute that you try to sound like an authority, though). I showed you the numbers, CNN's viewership has dropped off a cliff and it started when they decided to wage war on Trump. As more of their advertisers pull out and the company dies, it'll send a clear message that making up stories isn't journalism.
But how do you know that people are watching less because they think the stories are made up? Maybe they just find the stories pretty boring and/or repetitive?
If there is actual data behind the claim, it's probably a sign of oversaturation. The 24-hour news cycle is relentless. The only people who watch continually are the homebound/elderly, and it's not good for them.
I think it's odd that people are ranting about CNN "blackmailing" a kid who made a silly meme, which was turned into a worse meme by a bigger jackass... but said nothing about the President of the United ****ing States retweeting said meme.
Kids making rude things are everywhere, no one is going to stop them. The internet would be boring without it. However, it was being retweeted by someone who has power, which changed the context into something disgusting and dangerous.
The president is at war with the media. How is this good?
If there is actual data behind the claim, it's probably a sign of oversaturation. The 24-hour news cycle is relentless. The only people who watch continually are the homebound/elderly, and it's not good for them.
Oversaturation of yellow journalism is more like it. How does your theory make sense? No one else is losing viewership like that, and they run on the same cycle. It isn't just their cable news that's suffering, either, their ad revenue across all platforms is drying up.
I think it's odd that people are ranting about CNN "blackmailing" a kid who made a silly meme, which was turned into a worse meme by a bigger jackass... but said nothing about the President of the United ****ing States retweeting said meme.
Kids making rude things are everywhere, no one is going to stop them. The internet would be boring without it. However, it was being retweeted by someone who has power, which changed the context into something disgusting and dangerous.
What are you saying? Everyone has talked about the president retweeting the meme. And dangerous? Really? You bought that load of malarkey? The networks constantly showed Trump's bloody head, held up by CNN's own Kathy G, and that was fine (Kathy caught shit but CNN said it was "newsworthy" and had it on a 24 hour cycle). But a wrestling meme... oh no, not a wrestling meme! There's no doubt that's going to make people want to wrestle Acosta and give him a noogie, right? It's not inciting violence against reporters, CNN's pride was bruised over being publicly shamed for pushing the false Russia narrative. Something they knew was a nothingburger from the start but still devoted 100s of hours and 1000s and 1000s of pages to, in a pathetic attempt to make anything stick. What's really interesting is you refuse to hold the news to the same standard you demand from the POTUS.
The president is at war with the media. How is this good?
The media, and specifically CNN, started the war during the election, and they're as much to blame as Trump is, but no one on the far Left is calling them down for it. A better question is, why have they been warring with Trump? Well, that's pretty simple, because all the attention they showered him with helped get him elected, because despite being almost 100% negative, it kept him on everyone's mind, and now they feel responsible and want to make up for it in the only way they know how, by forcing even more negativity and fake news.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm sure you can find a similar negative scorecard for MSNBC.
Do you really not understand the difference between negativity and accuracy?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Matt Christianson nails the whole #CNNBlackmail thing perfectly:
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Do you really not understand the difference between negativity and accuracy?
This really sets off alarms for me, the more I think about the potential implications involved. In my mind, inaccuracy doesn't mean negativity, a person or group can be inaccurate towards something either to its benefit or detriment.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Using inaccuracy to benefit a particular thing means that thing looking better than it really is. That can easily be negative.
Maybe the UN should run a global news service. Funded by as many countries as possible with none of them having government editorial control. At least they would no longer be controlled by advertisers, ratings or politicians.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Using inaccuracy to benefit a particular thing means that thing looking better than it really is. That can easily be negative.
It can be anything; positive, negative, or a wash. That's the point.
Maybe the UN should run a global news service. Funded by as many countries as possible with none of them having government editorial control. At least they would no longer be controlled by advertisers, ratings or politicians.
I like NPR, they're a good news service, but they aren't "sensational" and don't cater to more salacious matters, so most don't follow them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Do you really not understand the difference between negativity and accuracy?
I don't understand what you are going on about here.
Negative (e.g. Obama not being born in the US), inaccurate, lazy, and pretty much every other unflattering thing can be said about the media for years now.
But I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
The common element is the profit motive. The media chases what news they can sell, it's really that simple. If this involves being negative, inaccurate, sexy, stupid, broadcasting upside down, they'll do it if they can. What is new about this?
I don't understand what you are going on about here.
It's okay, that's what I thought. I don't think it's really your fault, at a very basic, fundamental level we're wired differently.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Don Henley pretty much nailed when he penned this song.
Written 1982, it predates Fox News by over 12 years. CNN, on the other hand, was the only 24/,7 news channel at the time. The "Big Three" evening news shows were still the main source of national news.
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry
Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em all around
We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blond who
Comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
It's interesting when people die
Give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry
You don't really need to find out what's going on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're stiff
Kick 'em all around
Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry
We can do "The Innuendo"
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
The Daily Show pretty much came to its own because of poking fun at the fear mongering, sensationalism, inane/lazy reporting, silly love affairs with infographics and various news reporting technologies (e.g. holograms), everything being a breaking story, etc. It seemed to me that it thrived most during the Bush and Obama years, just to give you an idea of how far this goes back.
When Trump goes on about fake news it often seems to me like his biggest qualms are with reporting that doesn't cast him in a positive light, but you can certainly make the argument that all of the above happens on an at least steady, if not increased basis. You can't argue that it is new though.
There are obviously plenty of commentators with partisan opinions, we've debated the "balanced" argument many times, but I would say the greatest bias is towards what makes the most money - whether this is outrage, hyping a particular story, putting out a lot of fluff, giving partisan voices a megaphone, etc.
Until 1996 when Fox News launched, the news was dominated by left of center news organizations, all out to get their own "Nixon" I watched "Patton" on the 4th. The press was pretty much the same then as well. I can only imagine "Old Blood and Guts" with a twitter account!
You must feel insanely jealous too, because I'm obviously better than you.
It wouldn't surprise me if you actually thought that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Is negative anything that Trump doesn't like? Are we asking to whitewash all his events in a rosy glow? Should the news just copy/paste the White House press releases and take them at face value, alternative facts and all?
Negative does not mean inaccurate. Neither does positive mean accurate. Accurate means accurate.
Is negative anything that Trump doesn't like? Are we asking to whitewash all his events in a rosy glow? Should the news just copy/paste the White House press releases and take them at face value, alternative facts and all?
Negative does not mean inaccurate. Neither does positive mean accurate. Accurate means accurate.
I didn't ask if "accurate means accurate", I was talking about negativity. How hard is to understand that the vast majority people are sick of the constant, 24/7, unending stream of whining and grousing over every tiny thing Trump does? The news companies that stick with that for 4 years will go under, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves. There's a lot of other things going on CNN can cover, like the riots Hamburg that were being covered on the BBC (that CNN barely even mentioned). But no, they'd rather cry for 2 hours about Trump calling them fake news... yet again... Oh well, as I said before, good riddance. They aren't going to somehow flood Trump out of office with their tears, that's for sure.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It wouldn't surprise me if you thought that you are better than me.
Well, you've already said you think you're better. If that's true, then what does my opinion of you matter?
Truth bomb: There is no one in this world who is better than anyone else. Though I've heard many sick individuals who claim there are. Anyone is capable of the most extraordinary acts of good and evil. The most vile terrorist can have a selfless moment and do something truly heroic, and the most righteous hero can betray his vows and make everyone suffer. In fact, each scenario isn't just possible, it's inevitable.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Well, you've already said you think you're better. If that's true, then what does my opinion of you matter?
Truth bomb: There is no one in this world who is better than anyone else. Though I've heard many sick individuals who claim there are. Anyone is capable of the most extraordinary acts of good and evil. The most vile terrorist can have a selfless moment and do something truly heroic, and the most righteous hero can betray his vows and make everyone suffer. In fact, each scenario isn't just possible, it's inevitable.
You are just saying this because you know you are inferior compared to me.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I didn't ask if "accurate means accurate", I was talking about negativity. How hard is to understand that the vast majority people are sick of the constant, 24/7, unending stream of whining and grousing over every tiny thing Trump does? The news companies that stick with that for 4 years will go under, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves. There's a lot of other things going on CNN can cover, like the riots Hamburg that were being covered on the BBC (that CNN barely even mentioned). But no, they'd rather cry for 2 hours about Trump calling them fake news... yet again... Oh well, as I said before, good riddance. They aren't going to somehow flood Trump out of office with their tears, that's for sure.
The Daily Show spent many years covering examples of Fox News whining and grousing about every little tiny thing Obama did.
I don't know if there is an equivalence because I don't watch cable news (and if you believe in free market corrections maybe you should stop?!), but surely you must acknowledge this? Why did this happen? Because Fox News viewers tend to be conservatives, and grousing about Obama caters to the base and makes the network money.
Do you think there is more to this than just following the good ol' money trail?
The Daily Show spent many years covering examples of Fox News whining and grousing about every little tiny thing Obama did.
That's simply isn't true. CNN has flooded the 24 hours cycle with Trump negativity, Fox was never close to that extreme. No news company has ever done this before.
Do you think there is more to this than just following the good ol' money trail?
Of course, CNN hates Trump. Really hates him, down in their souls. Nothing good comes from that much hate, and most of their viewers are sick of watching it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr