At which point can we trust what media tell us?

[Jack V Savage]

The Democrats and media have been lying about 'climate change' or rather what used to be called Global Warming, for two decades. Nearly every short-term prediction has been proved to be false since the 1970s, hence why they're now predicting what's going to happen between 50, 75, or 100 years from now.

But, the public isn't buying their bullshit, so according to statists the public is ignorant of the facts that justify 'rational government.'

So we get to the real problem. Any information that you do not like, even if it is correct, is a "lie" in your view. You're doing exactly what I was talking about--using phony "skepticism" to close yourself off from any information that isn't coming from your preferred propaganda sources. And even at that, the media, by presenting the issue as a controversy is doing a disservice to viewers/readers.

Your real problem with the media is the exact opposite of what you're saying--you think they should ignore what scientists say about climate and listen instead to the gov't. Likewise with Benghazi--you think they should ignore what investigators conclude and instead listen to the gov't. Same with deficits. Ignore economists and listen to the gov't. It is a problem that the media gives too much attention to the gov't, but you want them to go even further in that direction.

It makes perfect sense, you're just avoiding answering the question. When was the last time that the public was viewed as cedible and informed, as opposed to ignorant as they are today?

Depends who is doing the viewing. To me, you are woefully ignorant. To someone living in a cave, you might be very well-informed.

You're not so ignorant to say the entirety of the Bengazi investigation hearings were entirely filled by the GOP.

The GOP's investigation led them to conclude that there was nothing there, no?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

So we get to the real problem. Any information that you do not like, even if it is correct, is a "lie" in your view. You're doing exactly what I was talking about--using phony "skepticism" to close yourself off from any information that isn't coming from your preferred propaganda sources. And even at that, the media, by presenting the issue as a controversy is doing a disservice to viewers/readers.

Lol @ this, as if the left is completely innocent of it as well. Your foreign policies and domestic issues have been proven to fail repeatedly to the point the successes are rare. Yet the policies and issues have remained the same for decades upon decades, administration after administration. The people who are wise to this are, in tour view, ignorant and living in caves, and therefore should be ignored.

Your real problem with the media is the exact opposite of what you're saying--you think they should ignore what scientists say about climate and listen instead to the gov't. Likewise with Benghazi--you think they should ignore what investigators conclude and instead listen to the gov't. Same with deficits. Ignore economists and listen to the gov't. It is a problem that the media gives too much attention to the gov't, but you want them to go even further in that direction.

Never said the media gives too much attention to the government, you said that I said it. I'd say the media needs to be more suspicious and skeptical of politicians, and keep track of their statements and promises, and not just for Republicans.

'Ignore economists?' Economists are like doctors, you can find one to parrot about anyone's political background. Just like Obama is in his 7th economic professor in his cabinet, and the economy is still in the shitter for main street, not Wall Street.

Depends who is doing the viewing. To me, you are woefully ignorant. To someone living in a cave, you might be very well-informed.

And you might seen very well informed, to what the mainstream media and politicians are portraying as truth. The difference between you and me is that you actually buy it.

The stimulus bill... didn't stimulate the economy.
The affordable healthcare act... make healthcare more expensive for those that were actually paying for it.
Taxing the rich... leads them to increase the prices of their products, so it's the consumers that pay the rich's taxes.

I could go on and on.

The GOP's investigation led them to conclude that there was nothing there, no?

Among the establishment Republicans? Yes, they'd rather have Hillary as the strongest Presidential candidate, than an unknown. Better to have the devil you know, in their point-of-view.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol @ this, as if the left is completely innocent of it as well.

I'm not talking about "the right," I'm talking about you. You, personally, are rejecting information sources that don't tell you exactly what you want to hear (or, more specifically, you're rejecting information that you don't like for ideological reasons).

Never said the media gives too much attention to the government, you said that I said it. I'd say the media needs to be more suspicious and skeptical of politicians, and keep track of their statements and promises, and not just for Republicans.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. I 100% agree that gov't perspectives (like climate-change denial, that tax cuts spur growth and pay for themselves, and a bunch of other ridiculous beliefs) get way too much attention from the media. But your objection is the opposite--that the media pays too much attention to scientists and analysts and not enough to the gov't.

'Ignore economists?' Economists are like doctors, you can find one to parrot about anyone's political background.

See, this the same thing as your view on the media. You seem to disbelieve in the concept of objective truth, or at least that anyone else cares about it and that professional standards get us closer to it. You're wrong.

And you might seen very well informed, to what the mainstream media and politicians are portraying as truth. The difference between you and me is that you actually buy it.

What you buy is rank propaganda. You don't even care to get the facts because they might contradict your narrative.

The stimulus bill... didn't stimulate the economy.
The affordable healthcare act... make healthcare more expensive for those that were actually paying for it.
Taxing the rich... leads them to increase the prices of their products, so it's the consumers that pay the rich's taxes.

I could go on and on.

Those are all claims made by politicians that are provably false. So that's a good example of what I'm talking about. If you analyze the issues yourself or even read the work of people who do that, you'll see that you're wrong, but you instead prefer to blindly trust the gov't.

Among the establishment Republicans? Yes, they'd rather have Hillary as the strongest Presidential candidate, than an unknown. Better to have the devil you know, in their point-of-view.

So basically you are not willing to let any facts about the issue change your mind. Correct? There's nothing that you could possibly see that would convince you that the GOP's initial conspiracy theory was wrong, right?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I'm not talking about "the right," I'm talking about you. You, personally, are rejecting information sources that don't tell you exactly what you want to hear (or, more specifically, you're rejecting information that you don't like for ideological reasons).

Right back at ya, chief. I could post articles from FoxNews, Rushlimbaugh.com, or a number of conservative sites, and you'd ignore them as well like I'd ignore yours.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. I 100% agree that gov't perspectives (like climate-change denial, that tax cuts spur growth and pay for themselves, and a bunch of other ridiculous beliefs) get way too much attention from the media. But your objection is the opposite--that the media pays too much attention to scientists and analysts and not enough to the gov't.

Again, you love putting words into my mouth. It's the tactic of a defeated arguement.

See, this the same thing as your view on the media. You seem to disbelieve in the concept of objective truth, or at least that anyone else cares about it and that professional standards get us closer to it. You're wrong.

And this the most naive thing you've ever posted.

What you buy is rank propaganda. You don't even care to get the facts because they might contradict your narrative.

And you disregard opposing viewpoints and the facts that back them up as 'rank propaganda.' If you honestly don't see the obvious propaganda machine that is the mainstream media, you're blind.

Those are all claims made by politicians that are provably false. So that's a good example of what I'm talking about. If you analyze the issues yourself or even read the work of people who do that, you'll see that you're wrong, but you instead prefer to blindly trust the gov't.

Lol, right, those were all quotes by not one of your approved senators.

Or it could be my own life experinces, that my own healthcare premiums are rising, the $800 billion stimulus bill would have helped an industry I was involved with in 2009, but it didn't, whatsoever. And I've been employed by businesses that's immediate response to increasing overhead costs and taxes is to... 1. Cut production costs. 2. Lay people off and hire younger employees that'll work for less. 3. Increase the costs of the final product.

So basically you are not willing to let any facts about the issue change your mind. Correct?

You're not reciting facts, it's propaganda.

There's nothing that you could possibly see that would convince you that the GOP's initial conspiracy theory was wrong, right?

Of course there could, let an unimpeded congressional investigation with witnesses that were at Bengazi publically testify. All of them. That's one trick that the Democrats on the congressional commitee have been doing behind the scenes, they're supposed to be a mix between a judge and investigator, but instead acting like a defense attoney.

 

[Madmick]

Dude, even the CIA's twitter got hacked. I have no idea what internet security has to do with media integrity. The OP confuses me.

 

[elmo_1968]

I trust most of what I read, but I don't watch TV news. I read the Washington Post and New Yorker regularly and NYTimes sporadically.

Of course if something sounds incredible you ought to look for corroboration, and always read everything critically. Does their evidence support their conclusion? Did they present evidence from both sides? Did they give a voice to the person who they make look bad?

Some of the things people are complaining about I don't understand. A picture of young Trayvon Martin? What, he wasn't a kid once? Immigration to Britain comes from inside the EU as well as outside? Of course it does.

The media's job is to supply us w/ info, and not just info that confirms our bias. If it is accurate and comprehensive, we can form our own opinions, which is our job.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Right back at ya, chief. I could post articles from FoxNews, Rushlimbaugh.com, or a number of conservative sites, and you'd ignore them as well like I'd ignore yours.

Couple of points: 1. You're talking about ideological media. That is, by its nature, slanted. The mainstream media might have certain subtle biases, but it's not in any way comparable to Rushlimbaugh.com. They have different business models. 2. Actually, I wouldn't expect Fox News to just make shit up so I would find their factual claims to be solid. What happens more with them is that they present true information in a misleading way. So, no, "right back at ya" doesn't apply. I'm all about information. It's important to use it correctly, though.

Again, you love putting words into my mouth. It's the tactic of a defeated arguement.

??? If you think I misrepresented your position in any way, tell me.

And this the most naive thing you've ever posted.

Well, thanks, because it is 100% true. That's not to say that *everyone* but you cares about objective truth, but clearly many people do, and standards in journalism and academia do get us closer to it over time (with missteps along the way). The degree to which you, GSM, put ideology over the quest for truth is unusual.

And you disregard opposing viewpoints and the facts that back them up as 'rank propaganda.'

No, I regard provably false statements designed to impress rubes and promote an otherwise unpopular agenda as "rank propaganda."

Lol, right, those were all quotes by not one of your approved senators.

Or it could be my own life experinces, that my own healthcare premiums are rising, the $800 billion stimulus bill would have helped an industry I was involved with in 2009, but it didn't, whatsoever.

It doesn't make any sense. Spending is income, right? You can't add $800B to the economy over two years (mostly) and not stimulate growth and increase employment unless we're already operating at full capacity. Most studies show that the stimulus was responsible for about 3 million additional jobs in the economy, and pretty much all economists believe it reduced unemployment noticeably. Again, that isn't something that people who know what they're talking about and are aware of the evidence argue about--it's just something that people in gov't argue about for propaganda purposes.

And I've been employed by businesses that's immediate response to increasing overhead costs and taxes is to... 1. Cut production costs. 2. Lay people off and hire younger employees that'll work for less. 3. Increase the costs of the final product.

It sounds like the particular businesses you worked for were overpaying people relative to market demand, which can happen on an individual level, but won't happen on an economy-wide level.

You're not reciting facts, it's propaganda.

Based on what?

Of course there could, let an unimpeded congressional investigation with witnesses that were at Bengazi publically testify. All of them. That's one trick that the Democrats on the congressional commitee have been doing behind the scenes, they're supposed to be a mix between a judge and investigator, but instead acting like a defense attoney.

LOL!

The media's job is to supply us w/ info, and not just info that confirms our bias. If it is accurate and comprehensive, we can form our own opinions, which is our job.

Again, people like GSM don't want to be informed, and they do want info that confirms their bias.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

The mainstream media might have certain subtle biases

Acceptance of propaganda fabrication machine.... confirmed.

??? If you think I misrepresented your position in any way, tell me.

It's astounding how you're acting like you don't knkw that you did it.

Well, thanks, because it is 100% true. That's not to say that *everyone* but you cares about objective truth, but clearly many people do, and standards in journalism and academia do get us closer to it over time (with missteps along the way). The degree to which you, GSM, put ideology over the quest for truth is unusual.

There's no objective truth, journalist's and commentator's views are colored by their own established beliefs, perspectives, and ideologies. That's why you can send two different reporters to Iraq right now and one can say it's muslim extremeism at it's worst, and the other can say ISIS's acts is because Israel and America has offended them to the point that such acts are justified.

No, I regard provably false statements designed to impress rubes and promote an otherwise unpopular agenda as "rank propaganda."

Sounds like you're describing last night's State Of The Union speech.

It doesn't make any sense. Spending is income, right? You can't add $800B to the economy over two years (mostly) and not stimulate growth and increase employment unless we're already operating at full capacity. Most studies show that the stimulus was responsible for about 3 million additional jobs in the economy, and pretty much all economists believe it reduced unemployment noticeably. Again, that isn't something that people who know what they're talking about and are aware of the evidence argue about--it's just something that people in gov't argue about for propaganda purposes.

Then by your definition of a successful stimulus plan, then Obama should have had constant trillion-dollar stimulus plans on a weekly basis, and we would be in an ecconomic prosperity right now.

It sounds like the particular businesses you worked for were overpaying people relative to market demand, which can happen on an individual level, but won't happen on an economy-wide level.

Yup, firing one experienced full time position, to hire two part time college graduates for $10 an hour and without healthcare bennefits... is completely unheard of.

Again, people like Jack V Savage don't want to be informed, and they do want info that confirms their bias.

Fixed.

 

[KaNesDeath]

Any news agency that uses an elected or seated official as a source for a story must always be met with skepticism. An on breaking news the truth always becomes known weeks if not months later after the incident.

 

[elmo_1968]

Any news agency that uses an elected or seated official as a source for a story must always be met with skepticism. An on breaking news the truth always becomes known weeks if not months later after the incident.

If you were to say "sole source" I might agree, but other than a puff piece on a tricky pet you should generally not have sole source stories.

If an elected official says that the cause of electrical outages is trees falling on the power lines, sure, do a story on it. But dig up the statistics on outages, talk to the people who maintain the lines, talk to conservationists and put that in your article as well. Then I have the fuel to form an opinion.

 

[Bloodworth]

Have people ever seen the news report a famous person dead and there are really still alive...If you search, Fox news had a ticker going at the bottom of the screen that reported bin Landen dead a day before it was officially released...

 

[elmo_1968]

Have people ever seen the news report a famous person dead and there are really still alive...If you search, Fox news had a ticker going at the bottom of the screen that reported bin Landen dead a day before it was officially released...

When Michael Jackson died and they were reporting on every inane thing peripheral to him, a reporter went to Forest Lawn cemetary to report he would be buried there. They started naming famous people who were buried there, including Betty White, and shortly thereafter they cut back to the studio where someone went on camera and said "A correction. Betty White is alive."

 

[Jack V Savage]

Acceptance of propaganda fabrication machine.... confirmed.

Dumb. The fact that the media has right-wing biases in terms of economics, for example, doesn't mean they make shit up. It's reflected in things like describing spending cuts as "responsible" or otherwise unquestionably good. "Lawmakers were unable to reach a deal on slashing SNAP benefits" vs. "Republicans' attempts to cut SNAP benefits were unsuccessful." Subtle bias. Not "propaganda fabrication."

It's astounding how you're acting like you don't knkw that you did it.

I didn't do it. If you think I did, for the second time, tell me. Obviously, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything you say (what would be the point?). I feel that I am sort of lowering myself to even engage you, but I've been very gracious about it.

Sounds like you're describing last night's State Of The Union speech.

It does?

Then by your definition of a successful stimulus plan, then Obama should have had constant trillion-dollar stimulus plans on a weekly basis, and we would be in an ecconomic prosperity right now.

See, this is the kind of thing that really makes you unworthy of a response, but since I'm so nice, I'm giving you one. It would certainly have been better for the economy if we'd had a larger stimulus, but your figures were pulled out of your ass and would obviously way overshoot the problem. Plus, the president doesn't have that kind of power. Obama did propose some further stimulus after the first round, but Congress failed to pass it.

Yup, firing one experienced full time position, to hire two part time college graduates for $10 an hour and without healthcare bennefits... is completely unheard of.

This is not a response to what I wrote.

Fixed.

And again. That kind of response is unbecoming of a grown man.

Any news agency that uses an elected or seated official as a source for a story must always be met with skepticism. An on breaking news the truth always becomes known weeks if not months later after the incident.

Any single source should be viewed with skepticism, and any decent journalist does, in fact, view comments from elected officials (and everyone else) with skepticism. And, yes, on many stories, it takes time for all the details to come out (and some preliminary reports are inaccurate).