I Am Shocked!

[Trausti]

 

[Derec]

That's the problem. You didn't say who you believe or what, or why. Have you even thought about it? Tossed some doubt at it and see what doesn't scrape away from the razor?

We need to be skeptical of all of them. Even when they are very good in their craft (like NY Times) doesn't mean there isn't a bias.

 

[Patooka]

So let's believe the people who don't even do the work instead? You understand how fucking stupid that sounds right?

You get that. right?

Did I say to believe them instead? No, I did not.

But why are you and others so defensive of CNN/other mainstream media outlets even when bias is demonstrated?

I never use CNN as a primary source, but keep projecting. And it's not defensive to point out that mainstream media outlets are orders of magnitude preferable to the alternative. Look how uninformed QAnon nuts and Trumptards are by readily dismissing "the libruhl media".

 

[Trausti]

Surprise! This guy is with CNN.

 

[Trausti]

This guy, too.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's the problem. You didn't say who you believe or what, or why. Have you even thought about it? Tossed some doubt at it and see what doesn't scrape away from the razor?

We need to be skeptical of all of them. Even when they are very good in their craft (like NY Times) doesn't mean there isn't a bias.

We are all already aware of which biases the times has. Or at least most of us are. It's a self centered bias that profits off of allowing the "both sides" rhetoric and political whoring. That said, they don't generally have to hide anything because reality has its own particular biases...

At least the times isn't out there proclaiming that up is down and left is right.

Then, I haven't looked into it because they are ancient, and irrelevant, and paywalled.

 

[Trausti]

 

[barbos]

You realize this means nothing without context, right?

I suppose you have original video where Anderson for some reasons walks into a water filled ditch.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Media trust hits new low

For the first time ever, fewer than half of all Americans have trust in traditional media, according to data from Edelman's annual trust barometer shared exclusively with Axios. Trust in social media has hit an all-time low of 27%.

56% of Americans agree with the statement that "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."
58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public."

What? Sure the media's fawning over Biden's inauguration and the conspicuous absence of CNN's Covid ticker since 1/20 is a bit suspicious, but the media is the guardian of truth! And you don't want to be against truth, do you?

I have a similar experience. One example. Covid-19 reporting in the media. I listen to the podcast TWIV (This Week in Virology). It's a group of leading virologists that discuss viruses and invite guests from around the world. Anthony Fauchi was a guest for instance. These are real scientists. It's no fake news.

There is no evidence that the new variants of Covid-19 are more virulent or more infectious. Either for or against. There is evidence that people are getting tired of self isolating and people are engaging in more risky behaviours. Which is a more plausible explanation for the rise of spread and mortality. But the news sources are all shouting from the rooftops that the problem is that the new virus is more dangerous, in spite of zero science to back it up. It's incredibly sloppy reporting. It's something we associate with tabloid journalism. Not serious news.

It's like this all the time. Newspapers fucking suck at reporting science accurately. If they are this bad at reporting something I do know, then how bad are they on reporting things I don't?

I was in Egypt during the revolution. I saw first hand what was happening. Al Jazeery was accurate. All the other mainstream newsources spread their own pet cinderella story about what was happening and how to interpret it. It was all fantasy. Everybody in the West were shocked when the Muslim Brotherhood one the election. Not readers of Al Jazeera.

I have another example. I took part of an anti-racist demonstration/riot in Stockholm 1993. It was against a neo-Nazi parade. I'm pretty sure I saw at least one Nazi skinhead be beaten to death. The guys head caved in. I saw other nazi skins beaten to the point where they must have needed hospitalisation. One skinhead jumped into the water. This is in Winter. It was -15 c. No way he survived. Not a line about how many skinheads were hurt. Since, in the news, they were the bad guys, we were made out to be the victims. We weren't. We absolutely slaughtered the nazi skinheads. Both figurately and in some cases literally. When I read the news I was shocked. We weren't little innocent little flowers. I was a teenager at the time. Which is my defence. I didn't know any better. But there were so much more of us that we didn't need to attack them. They didn't stand a chance. But in the media were were the underdogs. All the pictures emphasized this.

This is just a couple of examples of stuff I know because I was there. What about the things I haven't seen?

Mainstream news is so full of shit. They spread narratives people want to hear, rather than telling people what they need to hear. That's always been true. With click journalism all the media has become more like tabloids. The Internet, while spreading fake news, is also better fact checking sloppy mainstream news. And tabloids in turn are more tabloidy than ever.

No, I don't have a solution.

But this low trust in the media is well earned IMHO.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But the NHS is in near constant crisis all the time. Isn't this reporting accurate?

 

[Elixir]

We need to be skeptical of all of them.

"We"?
"All"?

Better tell Vonse, Trausti, Swizzle & co.
They delight in polls that show distrust in mainstream (factual) media, but decline to level their criticisms at the utterly fabulous content of FOX, OANN. NewsMax etc.
In fact, when confronted with it they pretend not to notice. For instance, no response to this:

how in the world could you possibly come to a conclusion that any media could be worse than CNN?????

Which CNN program or newscaster has been DEFENDED in court by claiming no reasonable, thinking person would accept their claims as actual news? That would be the worstest, to me, admitting that you're not even pretending to be a news channel when (person) is babbling his bullshit into the camera.

Right? CNN is the "worst possible", whereas the channel that defends its lies by saying they didn't mean to imply that they were telling the truth, is spewing gospel.
THAT is your chorus of "FAKE NEWS!" laid bare for the brainless right wing extremist chant that it is.
Even MSNBC has never had to defend itself like FOX does, by saying that you have to be a fucking idiot to believe what they're saying.
The corollary fact implicit in FOX's defense is that people who watch and believe it are fucking idiots.
And according to those very same idiots, THAT is "the real news".

 

[ideologyhunter]

The GOP stands for The Big Lie. They can't back away from it because their radicalized base would burn down the house. They can't back away from it because they would be forced to confess to years of hypocrisy and defending the indefensible. Look at Lindsey Graham, one of the most repellent men in public life. We have easy video side-by-sides of what he "stood for" five years ago and what he "stands for" today. Does it matter to him, that he's the slimiest pol imaginable? Nope. Deny, repeat the lie, gin up the phony outrage, tell the faithful that "very horrible" people committed the "worst political crime of all time."

 

[thebeave]

You realize this means nothing without context, right?

I suppose you have original video where Anderson for some reasons walks into a water filled ditch.

Reminds me of another fake news weather setup where a reporter is leaning into the wind and being all dramatic, while a couple is leisurely taking a walk in the background.

 

[laughing dog]

What exactly do you think those pictures indicate, besides your massive case of partisan butthurt?

That AC is pretending that the water is deeper than it is?

The only way Mr. Cooper could pretend the water is deeper than it is would be to be kneeling. Do you have any evidence of that?

Or are you trying to say that Mr. Cooper is deceiving the public by standing in an isolated pocket of deep water because the camera people are standing in shallow water? Did it not occur to you that it may be the case that the camera crew is on the isolated pocket of shallow water or that there are various levels of immersion in a flood due to the topography or that the even more basic notion that such a flood causes massive damage?

 

[laughing dog]

What exactly do you think those pictures indicate, besides your massive case of partisan butthurt?

It doesn't surprise me that you don't get it. Really doesn't. Anyone wanna help with the obvious?

I got. There is no way to see if Mr. Cooper or the crew are in the exceptional depths. And
It is possible Mr. Cooper is the exception, but it is not possible to tell from that picture. Moreover, Mr. Cooper may also have been trying to show the effects of the flooding on the community.

Your response confirms my observation that it is massive partisan butthurt driving your "criticisms.

 

[ZiprHead]

Before and after the inauguration.

So which one of those is a problem?

Were death rates not increasing?

Did researchers not say the CV-19 surge has peaked?

 

[laughing dog]

Before and after the inauguration.

So which one of those is a problem?

Were death rates not increasing?

Did researchers not say the CV-19 surge has peaked?

You don't understand. To a devoted follower of Mr. Trump, both are outrageous lies.

 

[Elixir]

Before and after the inauguration.

So which one of those is a problem?

Were death rates not increasing?

Did researchers not say the CV-19 surge has peaked?

You don't understand. To a devoted follower of Mr. Trump, both are outrageous lies.

In fairness, those two things are hard to reconcile when you have your head up your ass.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wasn't interested in the source the first time. Check the quality of sources!

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1803/1803.01845.pdf

How does that paper disprove CNN lying about that thug's sister?

You can see it yourself how they dishonestly edited the footage. No preprint paper is going to undo that.

You'll note the URL in amongst the junk media.

You can't tell if they deceptively edited the footage because you can't trust your source didn't fake the editing.

 

[Derec]

Before and after the inauguration.

So which one of those is a problem?

Were death rates not increasing?

Did researchers not say the CV-19 surge has peaked?

Both are true, but the focus on the negative under Trump and focus on the positive under Biden is the problem, if more than just cherry-picked reports.