Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Media Propaganda

Recommended Posts

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

^ Not sure what Disney and 21st Century Fox merging their entertainment properties has to do with "media propaganda"...

 

But now that Fox Corp. has sold off most of its entertainment properties, it has become a standalone company that will retain ownership of its Fox broadcast network, Fox owned-and-operated network affiliates, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network and its Fox Sports channels (FS1, FS2 and the many regional Fox Sports channels).

 

MORE:  https://www.npr.org/2019/03/20/705009029/disney-officially-owns-21st-century-fox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lara Logan, formerly of CBS, sounds off on media's treatment of Trump, other liberal bias

 

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lara-logan-press-dont-want-trump-to-be-normalized-cnn-not-being-honest-about-opinion-in-their-programming

 

Former CBS News journalist Lara Logan says the mainstream media is not allowing President Trump to be “normalized” as the nation's leader and accused CNN, among others, of passing off opinions as fact in a Fox News interview set to air Sunday.

 

“I've never seen the press corps behave the way they do today," Logan told host Mark Levin on “Life, Liberty & Levin. "So, it stands out to me because it's a departure from what I've seen throughout the last three decades. There is something actually much more significant about what you're seeing happen with the White House press corps.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

Lara Logan, formerly of CBS, sounds off on media's treatment of Trump, other liberal bias

 

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lara-logan-press-dont-want-trump-to-be-normalized-cnn-not-being-honest-about-opinion-in-their-programming

 

Former CBS News journalist Lara Logan says the mainstream media is not allowing President Trump to be “normalized” as the nation's leader and accused CNN, among others, of passing off opinions as fact in a Fox News interview set to air Sunday.

 

“I've never seen the press corps behave the way they do today," Logan told host Mark Levin on “Life, Liberty & Levin. "So, it stands out to me because it's a departure from what I've seen throughout the last three decades. There is something actually much more significant about what you're seeing happen with the White House press corps.”

 

I thought we established Logan is a hack and hypocrite?  And the irony of giving this kind of interview on a network that spent days saying Obama weakened America by wearing a bike helmet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, somebody has a theory on Reddit.  Let me just spend my afternoon not reading that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-justin-amash-stands-position-start-impeachment-proceedings-despite-criticism-n10111

 

Quote

Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.

 

I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before," she said. "I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."

 

Conservative propaganda masquerading as news is a stain on our country and damages our society's political discourse.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes "I don't know" are the hardest three words for anyone to utter, let alone attach a diatribe to a faulty premise. But that's Douche D'Souza for ya.....

 

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

 

The ban also applies to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity.

 

This shared tweet has nothing to do with this topic.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny how news can be tilted by leaving out certain salient details?? It's almost as if the extremists don't want people to be informed.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

comedy act or just cluelessness? 🤔

 

 

 

Yeah, but you think PBS is far left.  Compared to the trash you watch, CNN is dead center.  Hating on Trump doesn't make them far left biased.  It just means they have eyes and a moral compass.  What do you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

  Hating on Trump doesn't make them far left biased.  It just means they have eyes and a moral compass. 

your comment basically revealed how biased Don Lemon and Acosta even you know they are. Of course anyone has a right to hate Trump, but as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) you only know them as "professional" news people. If their reporting on Trump is as objective as you seem to suggest, then you would not perceive that they have personal animus toward him.  

Share this post


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

your comment basically revealed how biased Don Lemon and Acosta even you know they are. Of course anyone has a right to hate Trump, but as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) you only know them as "professional" news people. If their reporting on Trump is as objective as you seem to suggest, then you would not perceive that they have personal animus toward him.  

 

Professional news people can also have eyes and a moral compass.  The fact is that simply reporting the crap coming out of the Trump administration on a daily basis without any bias from the station or news anchors would still automatically be negative.  If the news was reporting on a serial killer, the reports would clearly have a negative slant regardless of the news anchor's personal views of them.  You seem to think that the negativity itself is a manifestation of unfair bias rather than the fact that Trump is a massive POS whose administration is a historic-level dumpster fire of corruption and evil.  The fact that you literally never engage in any discussion on anything that happens shows you can't defend any of it directly or lack the intellectual capacity to seriously respond. Somewhere inside, maybe you know it's all gone terribly wrong.  Maybe not.   Either way, you don't care or you've convinced yourself it's all worth it in the end.  Frankly, it doesn't matter which at this point.  The stain will live with you for the rest of your life.  What a waste.  I can only hope that good will eventually triumph and that there's an America left worth saving.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to point out that there's nothing indicative of "media propaganda" even if I believe the premise that CNN (and I guess specifically Acosta and Lemon) is actually "far left" but two men who work for the network think they're not.  Of course, the premise is utter bullsh** like everything EVD chooses to share, but still, it's not really relevant to this thread.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 9:27 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

Yeah, but you think PBS is far left.  Compared to the trash you watch, CNN is dead center.  Hating on Trump doesn't make them far left biased.  It just means they have eyes and a moral compass.  What do you have?

 

no, no bias. what was I thinking?? "moral compass"--lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

no, no bias. what was I thinking?? "moral compass"--lol

 

 

 

I watched it.  They were 100% correct.  The narrative that the Steele dossier is anything like what Trump said he would do is absurd and intellectually dishonest.  I support CNN taking down arguments that attempt to normalize or exonerate Trump's corruption and criminality.  The point made by Camerota was NOT about CNN shutting down Republican arguments, but rather CNN giving their audience the information needed so that THEY can shut down misleading or outright dishonest arguments exactly like the attempted equivalency made over the Steele dossier  You're not even in the ballpark of excessive bias.  Again, there is no requirement that journalists be as blind to wrongdoing as you are, and just pointing out wrongdoing or the poor justifications for it is not an example of bias.  It's an example of journalism.   

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, we also have a Fox News thread...


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Can we maybe not have Russian propaganda posted here?

Even when they expose American propaganda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This a-hole needs to be fired....

 

‘If true’: MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell substitutes wishful thinking for journalism

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/29/if-true-should-msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-be-hosting-show/

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...