|
Coffee And Pie posted:Reminder that this is a shirt you can buy. People own and wear these. They launder them when they get dirty so they can wear them again. I don't think that bolded part is entirely true.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
WarMECH posted:I don't think that bolded part is entirely true. Yeah, they get their wives to do it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Friend of mine posted this on FB: I definitely agree that CNN and USAToday are low-info non-partisan stuff. I find myself reading WaPo a lot these days, since their daily reports are a pretty good summation of everything awful the Trump administration does. Dr Christmas posted:I have seen a frightening number of comments explaining that Milo can't be racist because he talks about his fetish for black guys. Just remind them what Thomas Jefferson did to his slaves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Yeah like I'm looking for the most neutral site I can find. Report the situation and let me decide if I'm angry or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:Yeah like I'm looking for the most neutral site I can find. Report the situation and let me decide if I'm angry or not. That's liberal speak, brother. Let saint O'Reilly tell you what to be mad about. Then just be angry all the time as long as non-consevative people still exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Friend of mine posted this on FB: There's also a good case to make about stuff like CNBC and WSJ and other well-ranked outlets there having a strong bias with lower value. CNBC spends hours each day failing to report on externalities, jerking off 'business culture' and its figureheads, and serving as incredulous news ticker parrot on most political issues. Just because they don't push a transphobic Islamophobic Republican social agenda doesn't mean they aren't effectively a capitalist propaganda network. What you choose to cover matters as well as any sympathies and agendas you bring to the coverage. That's all pretty grating for people who view business and economics as more than a game to be won by Very Smart Businessmen. Definitely moves it further down and to the right on that chart, if I were reorganizing the list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Donald Trump. Myopic as gently caress and as intelligent as one of the Minions (TM). A Good Shirt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
It's telling when your local news interrupts scheduled programming for "breaking" news regarding a strip club being found guilty of prostitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
So what's your beef, you just don't want sensationalism in the media?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So what's your beef, you just don't want sensationalism in the media? Essentially yes. I realize that it's not exactly conducive to ad revenue or clicks or whatever, but the whole political climate has got me very disillusioned on news media. I feel like there's so much inherent bias baked in that it's difficult to tell the motives of the writer or site behind the piece. Washington Post and Al Jazeera are looking pretty promising in terms of what I'm looking for though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
My favorite local news story was when I was in Atlanta and a local news station decided to do a story about legal immigrants getting American jobs. So they read a list of employers with the largest numbers of work visas issued and went into a local unemployment office to ask people who were looking for a job if they think they should have had a shot at those jobs, and what do they think about them hiring so many foreigners. The funny part was that at the top of that list (or at least top 5) was GA Tech and Emory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
You realize that the media exists because of humanity's desire to hear these words: "holy poo poo, did you hear about..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So what's your beef, you just don't want sensationalism in the media? For starters I want news organizations to be forced to put retractions and corrections in the most obvious place and where it will get the most views. I want them to have to devote at least 5x as much time to that correction/retraction as they did to the story that presented the false/incorrect information in the first place. I want all revenue related to that false/incorrect story to be given to whomever it harmed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:For starters I want news organizations to be forced to put retractions and corrections in the most obvious place and where it will get the most views. I want them to have to devote at least 5x as much time to that correction/retraction as they did to the story that presented the false/incorrect information in the first place. I want all revenue related to that false/incorrect story to be given to whomever it harmed. I don't know about all that... but I think it would be an interesting requirement to force news outlets to feature their corrections and retractions before they can proceed to a new story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I don't know about all that... but I think it would be an interesting requirement to force news outlets to feature their corrections and retractions before they can proceed to a new story. What don't you know about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Friend of mine posted this on FB: Move every one that didn't condemn Bill Clinton's tough on crime and "welfare reform" crackdowns, the decision to go to war in Iraq before it happened, and the ones that didn't condemn Wall Street, the gig economy jobs, or free trade deals, to the second last column. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:What don't you know about? You're making perverse incentives. If the news had to pay large sums everytime they issued a correction then they never would. There's no law saying they have to. You could sue for libel like always, but if issuing a correction was the same as a summary judgment against the newspaper then why not just wait for the lawsuit?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:You're making perverse incentives. If the news had to pay large sums everytime they issued a correction then they never would. There's no law saying they have to. You could sue for libel like always, but if issuing a correction was the same as a summary judgment against the newspaper then why not just wait for the lawsuit? So you need some kind of system of punishment that makes issuing a correction the best thing for one of those organizations to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Move every one that didn't condemn Bill Clinton's tough on crime and "welfare reform" crackdowns, the decision to go to war in Iraq before it happened, and the ones that didn't condemn Wall Street, the gig economy jobs, or free trade deals, to the second last column. I wasn't even getting into coverage from over ten years ago, but hell yes. Also  at the idea of "local paper with X leaning" automatically getting placed in the center circle
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:So you need some kind of system of punishment that makes issuing a correction the best thing for one of those organizations to do. And would have to be the best written law in history because any law affecting freedom of the press is going to come under strict scrutiny and almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. Unless you're suggesting some kind of industry side regulation in which case I will laugh in your face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:I wasn't even getting into coverage from over ten years ago, but hell yes. For a while there Al Jazeera had a real blindspot with Qatar if I remember correctly. Don't know if it still does. I know it's still owned by Qatar so I would imagine so. A flat "liberal/conservative" axis doesn't reeeaally capture much nuance about how an organization is biased. Also it doesn't mention ProPublica, which is a good news source.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
TGLT posted:For a while there Al Jazeera had a real blindspot with Qatar if I remember correctly. Don't know if it still does. I know it's still owned by Qatar so I would imagine so. A flat "liberal/conservative" axis doesn't reeeaally capture much nuance about how an organization is biased. This. I worked in Qatar for a few months and it really soured me on Al Jazeera. The English Al Jazeera radio station I'd listen to was pro-Saudi/Qatari to an almost comical extent and would bring on this utterly over the top right wing American guy (Trumpian, in retrospect) who would say ridiculous poo poo and start shouting matches with the hosts. This was before Al Jazeera America existed though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Friend of mine posted this on FB: Pretty sure this chart is just goatse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:And would have to be the best written law in history because any law affecting freedom of the press is going to come under strict scrutiny and almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. Let it, this is a conversation worth having. I personally think its in the same vein of not saying bomb on an airplane or shouting fire in a crowded theater.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Let it, this is a conversation worth having. I personally think its in the same vein of not saying bomb on an airplane or shouting fire in a crowded theater. You're giving trump the power to declare that anything critical of his government is sensationalist and harmful, and therefor must be curbed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:You're giving trump the power to declare that anything critical of his government is sensationalist and harmful, and therefor must be curbed. I don't think so because all the news agency has to do is show their supporting evidence that whatever they said is true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
LMFAO at Natural News being far left on that chart. Mike Adams is a hard right libertarian who's a huge Ron Paul and Alex Jones fan boy and peddles in all kinds of bigoted conspiracies like birtherism. The idea that health woo = left wing is so dumb. That kind of pseudoscience ignores all political boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:I don't think so because all the news agency has to do is show their supporting evidence that whatever they said is true. So if a newspaper reports that Trump issued an executive order "banning muslims from 7 countries from entering the country," and Trump says "It's technically not a ban!" (As in, what is literally happening right now) What's their defense going to be? Do you really want the press to have to debate every single word that they print, for fear that they'll offend someone and get "well, technically"'d?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:So if a newspaper reports that Trump issued an executive order "banning muslims from 7 countries from entering the country," and Trump says "It's technically not a ban!" (As in, what is literally happening right now) What's their defense going to be? Do you really want the press to have to debate every single word that they print, for fear that they'll offend someone and get "well, technically"'d? Yes I'm okay with that because I have experience writing in that exact situation where you have to prepare for pedantic things like that. Where you'd have to defend your work and make sure it is well supported. I think it will raise the standard of quality of news in general because they'd have to prepare for as many  s as possible. I think we've all become acclimated to a low standard of quality when it comes to news because of the sheer amount of low quality crap coming out. Maybe it'd even restore some rigor and respect for journalists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:So if a newspaper reports that Trump issued an executive order "banning muslims from 7 countries from entering the country," and Trump says "It's technically not a ban!" (As in, what is literally happening right now) What's their defense going to be? Do you really want the press to have to debate every single word that they print, for fear that they'll offend someone and get "well, technically"'d? someone repost that article about why anti-semites want you to argue about the language used rather than what their message actually says.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
http://www.phillyvoice.com/pennsylvania-senator-trump-come-after-me-you-s-gibbon/ Yowza quote:Eavenson brought up to Trump an unnamed senator who was discussing introducing legislation that would require a conviction before law enforcement could seize forfeiture money, joking that "the cartel would build a monument" to the senator in Mexico for passing said legislation. https://twitter.com/daylinleach/status/829041688186335232
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:someone repost that article about why anti-semites want you to argue about the language used rather than what their message actually says. Jean-Paul Sartre posted:Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side. Why not just post the entire thing. http://abahlali.org/files/Jean-Paul_Sartre_Anti-Semite_and_Jew_An_Exploration_of_the_Etiology_of_Hate__1995.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Yes I'm okay with that because I have experience writing in that exact situation where you have to prepare for pedantic things like that. Where you'd have to defend your work and make sure it is well supported. I think it will raise the standard of quality of news in general because they'd have to prepare for as many Your position is seriously that you want the nation's news outlets to be even more on pins and needles than they already are over the possibility of offending someone powerful. Because you imagine that that it will somehow raise journalistic standards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Your position is seriously that you want the nation's news outlets to be even more on pins and needles than they already are over the possibility of offending someone powerful. Because you imagine that that it will somehow raise journalistic standards. My position is that our news has such a low bar for quality and veracity a nerite snail can crawl over it. The last decade shows that it can't or won't self regulate hence we need to put in some legal protections to curb the most heinous stuff like outright spreading lies that RWM does. Forcing news media to actually do retractions and cover them is part of raising that bar. As is providing a consequence for poor quality in the form of diverting whatever revenue they made from whatever false news they spread to whom ever was harmed. We need a news media version of the clean water act and I think something like this is the first steps to getting that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Your position is seriously that you want the nation's news outlets to be even more on pins and needles than they already are over the possibility of offending someone powerful. Because you imagine that that it will somehow raise journalistic standards. look all he wants is for all media to have to say "we are irresponsible and inaccurate! totally fake news!" in big bold letters on the front page every issue to make sure people are aware what unfair liars the media are. There have to be consequences folks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:My position is that our news has such a low bar for quality and veracity a nerite snail can crawl over it. The last decade shows that it can't or won't self regulate hence we need to put in some legal protections to curb the most heinous stuff like outright spreading lies that RWM does. Forcing news media to actually do retractions and cover them is part of raising that bar. As is providing a consequence for poor quality in the form of diverting whatever revenue they made from whatever false news they spread to whom ever was harmed. We need a news media version of the clean water act and I think something like this is the first steps to getting that. What is the loving bar for "clean media"? Who determines where this arbitrary standard of Truth and Justice? What court hears this kind of challenge? How does this address the fact that omission of important subjects or simplification of complex matters to sway audiences technically isn't "lying"? You're being a goddamn idiot and demanding the stupid/impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:The question still remains, what can anyone do about that? That kind of thinking makes people who follow it impervious to facts or evidence contrary to what they want to believe is real so you can't even engage with them. You can't just write them off because they can and have won major positions in government. Sadly, nothing I'm afraid. It's fundamentally ingrained and even part of the modern discourse all the way to slang. I think we're totally and completely hosed. I never thought I'd see a President as demonstrably awful as GWB and Obama was a beacon of hope but even the most optimistic part of me can't envision a scenario where 8 years of Trump and RWM cheerleading and propaganda does anything short of irresverable harm.I see otherwise moderately intelligent and generally well meaning people repeating catch phrases, buzzwords and memes as if they were facts. The hog is out of the tunnel, as HST would say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Some talk radio hack (I think it was actually Limbaugh) had a caller on yesterday who was a journalism major in college lamenting how the professors and the curriculum were so biased against conservatives and blah blah blah. The caller was saying she felt intimidated to speak her mind because she wanted good grades and poo poo and what should she do? The thing that got me about it was she said "it's like all these journalists constantly want to be on the right side of history so everything has a liberal/leftist viewpoint" as if that were a negative. If you think "being on the right side of history" is inherently a bad thing, maybe journalism isn't the thing for you, lady. So close to getting it. Sorry for double post
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
I think you might still be bitter or depressed from the election results so cheer up  and check out this thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800657 I think its the best chance at actually doing something about our current situation. Pander posted:What is the loving bar for "clean media"? Who determines where this arbitrary standard of Truth and Justice? What court hears this kind of challenge? How does this address the fact that omission of important subjects or simplification of complex matters to sway audiences technically isn't "lying"? Good points, start with the actual truth without any spin. Here's an example the one on the left has a hilarious amount of spin and outright bullshit in it. The scale doesn't match, the values don't match the line and its basically trying to outright say "Obama bad" in graph format. The biggest problem of all its its sending a false message that the unemployment rate has gone up and remained steadily bad.  Take the image on the right and style it for whatever theme you're going for then draw your conclusions from it and put it in your text. Some mixture of the people, evidence and experts. I have no experience with courts so I guess do like everything else and start civil/misdemeanor with small stuff and go up to criminal with big stuff. I don't know about you but, everywhere I've worked considers omitting things to be a lie, a lie by omission.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Sadly, nothing I'm afraid. It's fundamentally ingrained and even part of the modern discourse all the way to slang. I think we're totally and completely hosed. I never thought I'd see a President as demonstrably awful as GWB and Obama was a beacon of hope but even the most optimistic part of me can't envision a scenario where 8 years of Trump and RWM cheerleading and propaganda does anything short of irresverable harm.I see otherwise moderately intelligent and generally well meaning people repeating catch phrases, buzzwords and memes as if they were facts. Not going to lie, I feel this way as well and every time I watch the news or go to work -- where Fox News is blasted 24/7 -- my thoughts turn increasingly inward. I'm not being facetious. I'm tired of the damage being done to my country by these people and I'm tired of being powerless and I'm tired of being complicit by the sheer virtue of my citizenship. I have never been more ashamed to be an American. There is no hope. That light at the end of the tunnel is a speeding, out-of-control train. EDIT: I'd rather not get banned or probated. Screaming Idiot fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:30
|
|
