Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Media Propaganda

Recommended Posts

This is probably better suited to the Democrat 2020 presidential thread, which is locked. But it could also work here....

 

 


"Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you Buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it." -- Gordon Gekko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you Buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it." -- Gordon Gekko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KJP said:

 

 

This talking point makes me soooooo mad.. and its popular among liberal pundits. It is not CNN's job to make sure no one can play spoiler, that's the entire point of democracy and the 5th estate. 

 

I'd put it this way with regards to Dems and Schultz. The Dems have been waiting to play QB, they're a junior, and the senior gets hurt in the offseason, so the job looks like it's theirs to grab... then someone states they intend to transfer in from another school and the Junior QB is outraged at the coach for allowing there to be open competition. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

This talking point makes me soooooo mad.. and its popular among liberal pundits. It is not CNN's job to make sure no one can play spoiler, that's the entire point of democracy and the 5th estate. 

 

I'd put it this way with regards to Dems and Schultz. The Dems have been waiting to play QB, they're a junior, and the senior gets hurt in the offseason, so the job looks like it's theirs to grab... then someone states they intend to transfer in from another school and the Junior QB is outraged at the coach for allowing there to be open competition. 

 

Counterpoint: Howard Schultz isn't yet running for President and is generally terrible or non-existent on policy.  I'd rather hear a town hall from Buttigieg, Gillibrand, Booker, etc. - you know, candidates who have actually declared.

  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Counterpoint: Howard Schultz isn't yet running for President and is generally terrible or non-existent on policy.  I'd rather hear a town hall from Buttigieg, Gillibrand, Booker, etc. - you know, candidates who have actually declared.

 

Sure, that's fine... but the visceral reaction against the attention shown to Schultz comes off as insecurity, imo, rather than pointing out a perceived injustice or disservice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Sure, that's fine... but the visceral reaction against the attention shown to Schultz comes off as insecurity, imo, rather than pointing out a perceived injustice or disservice. 

 

Schultz has a 4% favorability rating at the moment - that's 4% among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

This talking point makes me soooooo mad.. and its popular among liberal pundits. It is not CNN's job to make sure no one can play spoiler, that's the entire point of democracy and the 5th estate. 

 

I'd put it this way with regards to Dems and Schultz. The Dems have been waiting to play QB, they're a junior, and the senior gets hurt in the offseason, so the job looks like it's theirs to grab... then someone states they intend to transfer in from another school and the Junior QB is outraged at the coach for allowing there to be open competition. 

 

Is it an open competition if CNN is giving Schultz this air time but not Buttigieg, Gillibrand, etc.? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Is it an open competition if CNN is giving Schultz this air time but not Buttigieg, Gillibrand, etc.? 

 

I promise you CNN will do AT least 6 town halls with Dem contenders. 

 

And to your question, yeah, it is. I'd venture to bet Schultz's PR team reached out to CNN for this... if it went the other way,  and CNN reached out, then I'm wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media did the same thing with Trump.  They gave him massive free coverage where he would talk about nothing but his dumb racist ideas.  Meanwhile serious candidates were discussing real ideas.  Then the media complained that no one focused on the issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If The Media was Actually Liberal they would have given Trump almost no screen time. But Trump = Ratings so the almighty dollar wins as always over politics with for-profit media.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

If The Media was Actually Liberal they would have given Trump almost no screen time. But Trump = Ratings so the almighty dollar wins as always over politics with for-profit media.

 

this might have been true during the campaign, when he got excessive coverage in relation to the other candidates, but once he became President getting lots of "screen time" goes with the position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

I promise you CNN will do AT least 6 town halls with Dem contenders. 

 

And to your question, yeah, it is. I'd venture to bet Schultz's PR team reached out to CNN for this... if it went the other way,  and CNN reached out, then I'm wrong. 

 

 

There's virtually no constituency for Howard Schultz.

  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

^Did you just quote Ian Milhiser in regards to Howard Schultz? C'mon now... 

 

Not for his insight but for reporting how many people are watching the Schultz livestream.  Do you need a different source to believe the number of people who watched it or something?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Not for his insight but for reporting how many people are watching the Schultz livestream.  Do you need a different source to believe the number of people who watched it or something?

 

No, I believe you. But citing him re: something about Schultz would be like citing me re: something about that Pumpkinhead guy at Browns games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://thinkprogress.org/howard-schultz-policy-speech-416da7ffc5df/

 

I think this has a screenshot.

 

I would be fine if Schultz wants to make his case in the Dem primary - if he was actually the voice missing in the Democratic Party, he'd be much better positioned to defeat Trump than this socially liberal, fiscally conservative Indy bid he's mulling.  He'd also have earned it by making his case to the ~50% of the country who will work and vote to defeat Trump.  He wants to take the easy way out by avoiding any primaries and not having to take stands on difficult issues against other candidates.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one of Donnie's friends exposed as a dirtbag.  Well you know what they say, "Birds of a feather flock together"

 

image.thumb.png.8fda3c6376a9998f4d90e0e9e56da19f.png

 

this didn't age well

 

The competitor here is the National Enquirer who is implicated in Trump's campaign finance felonies.  What's interesting is the a "government agency" intercepted Bezos' text messages.  So the plot thickens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, freefourur said:

The competitor here is the National Enquirer who is implicated in Trump's campaign finance felonies.  What's interesting is the a "government agency" intercepted Bezos' text messages.  So the plot thickens.  

 

We have that "crazy conspiracy theories" thread for nonsense like this. Sure, Jeff, it was the big bad government who hacked into your phone/cloud and leaked your text messages. It certainly couldn't have been your sidepiece, nor her husband, nor your soon-to-be-ex wife who stands to make billions off your divorce, nor the thousands of enemies the owner of such a large corporation must have made over the course of a career... it must have been Trump! He'd have been better off blaming aliens (the ones from outer space).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

We have that "crazy conspiracy theories" thread for nonsense like this. Sure, Jeff, it was the big bad government who hacked into your phone/cloud and leaked your text messages. It certainly couldn't have been your sidepiece, nor her husband, nor your soon-to-be-ex wife who stands to make billions off your divorce, nor the thousands of enemies the owner of such a large corporation must have made over the course of a career... it must have been Trump! He'd have been better off blaming aliens (the ones from outer space).

 

The thing is, AMI’s actions may have crossed the line to extortion, depending on who you consult.  Bezos of course owns the paper that ostensibly brought down Nixon.   The odds are they were a stalking horse for a faction of the FBI (sound familiar?).   This doesn’t seem like a smart battle.  Especially since DJT won’t hesitate to send them beneath the proverbial GILLIG if it suits him to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

 

We have that "crazy conspiracy theories" thread for nonsense like this. Sure, Jeff, it was the big bad government who hacked into your phone/cloud and leaked your text messages. It certainly couldn't have been your sidepiece, nor her husband, nor your soon-to-be-ex wife who stands to make billions off your divorce, nor the thousands of enemies the owner of such a large corporation must have made over the course of a career... it must have been Trump! He'd have been better off blaming aliens (the ones from outer space).

It's not a conspiracy theory when Pecker has already admitted to conspiring with Donnie in a felony campaign finance crime.  Even Ted Cruz knows that Donnie works with Pecker to get stories in his favor. 

 

What we have here is the president of the United States working through a fake news tabloid to attack Bezos because he doesn't like WaPo's reporting. 

 

I don't hear a peep from the muhhh 1st amendment people at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Not to get off topic, but that guy's "prominent journalist" reference to himself is interesting. It reminds me of Bezos' $5 million Washington Post Super Bowl commercial. If you're a "prominent journalist," why the need to refer to yourself as such? If you're "real news," why the need to spend $5 million to tell people you're real news?

 

Also, Drew Carey? There's a name I haven't seen in years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

^ Not to get off topic, but that guy's "prominent journalist" reference to himself is interesting. It reminds me of Bezos' $5 million Washington Post Super Bowl commercial. If you're a "prominent journalist," why the need to refer to yourself as such? If you're "real news," why the need to spend $5 million to tell people you're real news?

 

Also, Drew Carey? There's a name I haven't seen in years!

 

It's like calling yourself fair and balanced.  Fox News.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may not be the right topic, but I was thinking about how one of our issues with media is that they get the facts wrong, often.  When/If they correct themselves, they do so as a footnote somewhere.  Could there be a law put in place that basically says if they get something wrong, they must spend as much time and/or space in the same time slot/page stating the truth as they did with the false claim?

 

There would be issues around specifics - e.g. does an entire opinion piece based on a false premise mean you have to write another opinion piece just as long?  probably not... so I'm sure there are some issues with it, but would this help us navigate what's true a little better?  seems like it would at least help a little to correct the misinformation in the public realm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ck said:

This may not be the right topic, but I was thinking about how one of our issues with media is that they get the facts wrong, often.  When/If they correct themselves, they do so as a footnote somewhere.  Could there be a law put in place that basically says if they get something wrong, they must spend as much time and/or space in the same time slot/page stating the truth as they did with the false claim?

 

There would be issues around specifics - e.g. does an entire opinion piece based on a false premise mean you have to write another opinion piece just as long?  probably not... so I'm sure there are some issues with it, but would this help us navigate what's true a little better?  seems like it would at least help a little to correct the misinformation in the public realm. 

 

Unconstitutional.  Imagine how that law could be misused.  Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong.  Opinion pieces aren't good sources and they shouldn't pretend to be.

Edited by 327

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problems with misinformation have more to do with the viral nature of social media, the rise of pseudo-news sources that just play a game of telephone that distorts original source journalism, and intentional disinformation from bad actors like Russia.  The relatively rare errors that mainstream sources make (and I'm talking reporting, not opinion pieces) are the least of the problems the average information consumer runs across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, it shouldn't be on opinion pieces.  How about you if you get designated as a source of news, you must follow these rules. It certainly wouldn't apply to everyday citizens or someone's blog.  I don't see how ensuring the same amount of air time given to the truth as was given to an "alternate truth" could be considered a first amendment violation.  You're not preventing speech, you're trying to ensure it's accurate.

Edited by ck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ck said:

You're right, it shouldn't be on opinion pieces.  How about you if you get designated as a source of news, you must follow these rules. It certainly wouldn't apply to everyday citizens or someone's blog.  I don't see how ensuring the same amount of air time given to the truth as was given to an "alternate truth" could be considered a first amendment violation.  You're not preventing speech, you're trying to ensure it's accurate.

 

Who gets to determine truth for everyone else?  What happens when they're wrong?  We don't need a Ministry of Truth. There's no way to secure it from being co-opted.  Sometimes the minority opinion, one that looked wrong at first, turns out to be right. 

 

Sorting out truth from lies is the responsibility of the individual.  Nobody should be telling anyone else how to think, not with authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When something is demonstrably false, you have to correct it.  We don't need to go down a rabbit hole of it's impossible to know the truth, that's not a good omen for civilization.  If someone says we have 1MM tons of drugs coming in through our borders and there is no evidence to back that up, then that claim shouldn't be used, and they need to say that clearly to their audience.  If they have direct evidence that it's only 1M tons, they need to clearly state that as well.  

 

And when you say, sometimes what we thought was true turns out to be false, those are the exact situations where it would seem to be beneficial to be required to spend just as much time telling everyone that it's false - it shouldn't be a footnote.

 

We can start somewhere, it's not all or nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to avoid this problem is for the media organizations to use a trade group that can self-regulate. Other industries do similar things that aren't controlled by the government. The issue is having any teeth that would encourage organizations to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ck said:

When something is demonstrably false, you have to correct it.  We don't need to go down a rabbit hole of it's impossible to know the truth, that's not a good omen for civilization.  If someone says we have 1MM tons of drugs coming in through our borders and there is no evidence to back that up, then that claim shouldn't be used, and they need to say that clearly to their audience.  If they have direct evidence that it's only 1M tons, they need to clearly state that as well.  

 

And when you say, sometimes what we thought was true turns out to be false, those are the exact situations where it would seem to be beneficial to be required to spend just as much time telling everyone that it's false - it shouldn't be a footnote.

 

We can start somewhere, it's not all or nothing. 

 

If we just found out what we thought was true actually wasn't, why would it be a good idea to start insisting upon this brand new version of truth?  What if it's wrong too?  Look at the story of that guy in Chicago claiming he got jumped.  There's a reason why court is such a complicated process, why we have so many levels of appeal, and why the courts are expected to operate within the bounds of democracy. 

 

Truth isn't easy to come by.  Lots of "direct evidence" isn't nearly as direct or as probative as it might seem at first.  Try not to make conclusions based on any one statistic.  Chances are it's not really measuring what it wants to measure, even if it's honestly trying to.  Stats are often used to distract from bigger and clearer issues.

 

No one is going to protect you from liars.  No one ever can.  Liars will always exist, they will sometimes tell the truth, and you must make your own judgments about everything everyone says.  Giving that up that autonomy of thought to some bureau somewhere is not a good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm hearing in your argument is that because some things are debatable and/or fluid, we must not hold to account the organizations that blatantly mislead by using demonstrably false statements.  I find that to be even more cynical than I've become - which is pretty cynical.  Many organizations already have corrections that are put out on a regular basis when they get better or more complete information.  This is simply a continuation of that. 

 

It feels like you are looking at this as solving truth once and for all.  Rather than something that grandiose, I think we should make small iterations at getting better at representing the truth. This would just be a step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this doesn't get at the problems with "truth" that we're having in today's information world- which have everything to do with people spreading outright fake news or third-hand reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ck said:

What I'm hearing in your argument is that because some things are debatable and/or fluid, we must not hold to account the organizations that blatantly mislead by using demonstrably false statements.  I find that to be even more cynical than I've become - which is pretty cynical.  Many organizations already have corrections that are put out on a regular basis when they get better or more complete information.  This is simply a continuation of that. 

 

It feels like you are looking at this as solving truth once and for all.  Rather than something that grandiose, I think we should make small iterations at getting better at representing the truth. This would just be a step.

 

You are talking about having the government issue rulings, to the free press, on what the truth is.   To me that sounds extremely dangerous.  I would not take a single step toward it.  One person's "demonstrably false" is another person's "that's not even what it says in your source." 

 

We are entering an age of believable faked video.  They can put your face on someone else and it looks real.  Don't be too sure of anything you didn't personally see.  If you find a media source that you believe has been forthright about correcting itself, maybe they're a good one.  But they'll never be perfect.  It's best to keep an open mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely lots of issues out there.  I think it would be much harder, due to 1st amendment issues, to control social media.  However, if you start designating news organizations differently and then hold them to a higher standard, I think we at least can start differentiating between where news should actually come from and what's just gossip.  If people want to use breitbart as a news source, they should be held as accountable as wapo or get their designation as a news source revoked. They can still publish whatever they want, just be classified in the gossip category instead of a news source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

You are talking about having the government issue rulings, to the free press, on what the truth is.   To me that sounds extremely dangerous.  I would not take a single step toward it.  One person's "demonstrably false" is another person's "that's not even what it says in your source." 

 

We are entering an age of believable faked video.  They can put your face on someone else and it looks real.  Don't be too sure of anything you didn't personally see.  If you find a media source that you believe has been forthright about correcting itself, maybe they're a good one.  But they'll never be perfect.  It's best to keep an open mind.

 

I don't think it's as hard as you're making it, and the consequences frankly aren't that severe.  The whole premise is that they simply give as much air time/coverage to the accurate facts as they did to the inaccurate ones.  If they stated something was 1MM and it was really only 1M, then they should correct that with as much coverage as the 1MM got, not as a footnote.  If they got the 1MM number from a source and they stated as much, then that wouldn't be inaccurate.  The source stated it was 1MM, is a true statement.  I guess the next step would be to ensure the sources are valid, but that obviously gets a lot harder.  In this case though, if the source later comes out and says they were wrong and it's only 1M, then possibly they should be required to update their audience with that information.  Seems like it would be in the public's interest.

 

 

**Edit**

I guess I should clear up what I was thinking this could help.  It's supposed to help address the problem of our ADHD culture just reading headlines or ledes, forming strong opinions, and then never updating those opinions when more facts come out.  Yes, I'm just brainstorming without a ton of thought put into it, but it seemed that the first step should be - give as much attention to the accurate facts as you did to the inaccurate ones.  

 

 

Edited by ck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ck said:

 I guess the next step would be to ensure the sources are valid, but that obviously gets a lot harder. 

 

Exactly.  It is very difficult to arrive at Official Government Truth in a free society.  It's an excruciating process on purpose.  And it still gets messed up and it still gets corrupted.

 

You personally designate Breitbart as a bad source.  So do I.  Good for us, I'm glad we're allowed to make the call ourselves.  Do not ever put that decision in someone else's hands.  And please don't ask me to.  My parents would say Fox and Breitbart belong on the Official Government Truth list while NYT doesn't.  They have two votes to my one.  What would the current executive branch decide?  What would congress decide right now?  What would congress have decided a few months ago?  Pretty soon truth starts changing like the weather. 

 

As to your example, it is absolutely impossible to measure the flow of illegal drugs.  Any number anyone gives you is made up.  Think about it.  How could they possibly know that?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the scope of what I'm advocating for is creeping into trying to determine truth.  I don't know of a good way to determine truth.  However, I can say that if a source that was cited said X and then later updated it to say Y, shouldn't we also give as much attention to Y as we did to X?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...