Do you dislike the mainstream media?

[Wingslaught]

Clear to you because any reality reads as "anti-Trump" bias to you because of your own bias, no?

No, not at all. I know it's unlikely you'll concede that media outlets have any political bias since we've had these discussion before, I just disagree.

But Obama and Trump are different people who have acted extremely differently in office. Surely you can see that, can't you?

I disagree. I think both of them act in an overly "me-first" type way and are far too concerned with their public images and how they're portrayed in the media. I do prefer Trump's policies though for the most part. Curious to see your take on this article:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-obama-squared-1459207095

Trump Is Obama Squared
Two epic narcissists who see themselves as singularly suited to redeem America.

Donald Trump is Barack Obama squared. Not as a matter of rhetorical style, where the president is glib and grammatical, while the developer is rambling and coarse. Not as a matter of economic instincts, where Mr. Obama is a social democrat while Mr. Trump is a mercantilist.

 

[SBJJ]

You don't know what you don't know.

It's pretty clear that Fox News is pro-Trump and nearly every other news outlet is rabidly anti-Trump. Personally, I like watching the MSM stations now in small doses because they cover Trump's actions in the way I think they should have covered Obama for eight years but they had a massive blindspot, imo.

For example, so far I've seen Trump referred to as a Mad King, Despot, Narcissist, Dictator, and more by reputable pundits and analysts in the MSM who say he openly abuses his power. These same outlets heaped praise on Obama for eight years and didn't hold him to account for anything which was their job after all.

In B4 Jack says “But Trump is a bad guy and Obama is a good guy “

 

[djacobox372]

Why would anybody "trust" any source? You need to verify.

Most are biased (cnn, NBC, bbc, nyt) others outright lie (fox, Breitbart, tyt).

 

[Chinballs]

They aren't necessarily phony wars, but the reasons used to generate public support for them are usually phony I'd say.

Yea that's my English skills failing me. Long time no see. Thought maybe you had thrown in the towel.

 

[Chinballs]

Why would anybody "trust" any source? You need to verify.

Most are biased (cnn, NBC, bbc, nyt) others outright lie (fox, Breitbart, tyt).

CNN, NBC, BBC and NYT also lie outright.

 

[Factory]

Why would anybody "trust" any source? You need to verify.

Most are biased (cnn, NBC, bbc, nyt) others outright lie (fox, Breitbart, tyt).

and some are even racist...

 

[ultramanhyata]

But Obama and Trump are different people who have acted extremely differently in office. Surely you can see that, can't you?

"So the driver made the guy who was shouting incoherently at people and who had soiled his trousers get off the bus. But right across the aisle there was a man quietly reading his phone. And the driver let him stay on. I couldn't believe the bias and double standard. Outrageous."

 

[K1levelgrappler]

What I have learnt from this subforum is the amount of negative people that do resides here.

Where do you get the news? Or are you all experts in source criticism?

Please give me some example of good english news sites(tv, streaming) where both sides can agree.

I bet you won't get a straight answer for this. Somebody should make a thread along these lines.

Post your news bookmarks folder or something. Bet a lot of people would be too embarrassed to admit what they consider unbiased journalism.

 

[all caps]

I think we've talked about this, but this in bold is the #1 root of the problem imo. How do we address this? When there are people, the majority of people, on either side, who strongly "believe" they are correct on their stance with an ounce of the information required to feel so strongly what do we do? If people were more open to say "I think this but I am not too informed" they would be able to grow and learn. Instead, we have people shouting left or right how they are 100% right without question based on some 5 minutes of tv news or a headline on a facebook article that they didn't even click to open and read.

Since the majority of people are like this now, how can we ever expect things to get better at this stage? Do we just accept that this is just the way it's going to be now going forward? I want to say yes.

Well, I want to do my part by speaking up to avoid going that direction. Because I think it leads us to a bad place, history being my evidence.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Do you dislike the mainstream media? Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, I just want to know where normal people stand. I watch Fox News and it makes me cringe. Then I watch CNN and it makes me cringe.

The Daily Show was my #1 news source for like 10 years because Stewart made fun of everyone. Now South Park is my unbiased news outlet.

Anyone that doesnt vote is fake news.

people scoff at shows like that (and the hosts will even use "we're not news" as an excuse to do things), but i think satire is really important. historically too, you can look back and see instances in which it was.

The reason the Daily Show hosted under Jon Stewart was comedic genius, yet the exact same show hosted under Trevor Noah has been a complete pile of shit, is for two simple reasons.

1: There were points in between Stuart wagging his finger at half the audience, where the entire audience got to laugh. Trevor Noah's open distain for half of his potential audience prevents him from ever doing this.

2: This was something Jon Stewart truly mastered. Smug condescension has to be matched with self-deprecating humor, otherwise the audience won't be receptive to the message and the presenter just comes off as a self-important asshole.

 

[panamaican]

I don't dislike it. I don't like it. But I do care.

It's always useful to know what story angles are being presented to the public.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Meh. I've seen how discussions on the forum go. For the most part, the most misinformed posters only get more misinformed discussing things or at least are immune to reason. And they don't even have to be idiots to fall into that. Just recently had a discussion with @Jackie Blue, who is generally a decent poster, where he revealed that he believed a number of wild fantasies about a politician he was taught to dislike.

I wasn't taught to dislike any of them. I look at the facts and then form fact-based opinions. Just because I would prefer Hillary to Trump doesn't mean I give her or her husband a pass. They have a long, well-documented history of being involved in shady stuff. I understand picking her as the lesser of two evils, but caping for her and Bill like this is bizarre. I recommend that you try to watch the documentary I embedded in the other thread that does a good job of laying out the case.

 

[Bacco]

It's not there to keep us informed and it definitely does not have our best interests in mind.

If i had better english this will have been my reply

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, not at all. I know it's unlikely you'll concede that media outlets have any political bias since we've had these discussion before, I just disagree.

There's nothing to disagree with. It's simply not true that the MSM has an anti-Trump bias. Doesn't even make sense.

I disagree.

You disagree that Trump are Obama are different people who act differently?

I wasn't taught to dislike any of them. I look at the facts and then form fact-based opinions. Just because I would prefer Hillary to Trump doesn't mean I give her or her husband a pass.

You should not give anyone a pass for anything real simply because you prefer them to some other person. Neither should you believe absurd lies told in shitty propaganda videos.

They have a long, well-documented history of being involved in shady stuff.

Not really, though. You posted a link to a crazy CT video. Putting aside the obviously bad sources and the implausibility of the actions, do you really think they'd be that reckless, and that if they were, no one would be able to produce any real evidence for that kind of thing? Like, you realize that Clinton has been frivolously investigated on multiple occasions, and not the slightest hint of any actual shady activity has come of it, right? How is it that this would escape the attention of Gowdy, Gingrich, etc.?

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Yes. And if this was "All media" instead of just Mainstream....it would still be yes.

Journalism was critically wounded back in the early 1970s when they went with the "If it bleeds, it leads" concept. It started the downward spiral of sensationalism which started to infect not only how stories are written, but chosen...to sell papers.

The news, is supposed to be about spreading information. Once that was no longer the focus, it was just a matter of time before a "white bronco related police chase" would come along and kill it....and thats the story that did it. CNN got insane ratings so obviously they were going to take it further and turn the O.J trial into a circus. The death of the industry known as journalism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Journalism was critically wounded back in the early 1970s when they went with the "If it bleeds, it leads" concept. It started the downward spiral of sensationalism which started to infect not only how stories are written, but chosen...to sell papers.

If you think that post-1970s sensationalism and focus on lurid crime stories was bad, you should see pre-1970s sensationalism and focus on lurid crime stories. Much worse.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

If you think that post-1970s sensationalism and focus on lurid crime stories was bad, you should see pre-1970s sensationalism and focus on lurid crime stories. Much worse.

Yeah, no.

Do not mistake my giving the change in INDUSTRY modo, to there being "no" stories of the like before that...you dont come to the conclusion that something is good for the industry without having some info to go on and that requires stories of such type to have been used before.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, no.

Do not mistake my giving the change in INDUSTRY modo, to there being "no" stories of the like before that...you dont come to the conclusion that something is good for the industry without having some info to go on and that requires stories of such type to have been used before.

The industry has become much more professional and less sensationalistic since the 1970s and before. It's really not even close.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Yes. And if this was "All media" instead of just Mainstream....it would still be yes.

Journalism was critically wounded back in the early 1970s when they went with the "If it bleeds, it leads" concept. It started the downward spiral of sensationalism which started to infect not only how stories are written, but chosen...to sell papers.

The news, is supposed to be about spreading information. Once that was no longer the focus, it was just a matter of time before a "white bronco related police chase" would come along and kill it....and thats the story that did it. CNN got insane ratings so obviously they were going to take it further and turn the O.J trial into a circus. The death of the industry known as journalism.

meh.

you've never heard of "yellow journalism?" its always been around. the grub street english writers before the french revolution.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

The industry has become much more professional and less sensationalistic since the 1970s and before. It's really not even close.

Naw, not even most journalist courses teach that...most point to Hunter Thompson as being the main reason for Journalism turning to crap with, what he termed, Gonzo Journalism, as it changed the industry by removing all claims of objectivity basically undoing what most call the greatest decade of Journalism, the 1960s and the "New Journalism" style created by Tom Wolfe...who is on almost every top 10 list of greatest journalists of all time.

You are more than likely talking about "yellow journalism"...but the yellow press was never held as mainstream and they never could come close to the papers that did not take part in it, nor had a good reputation, most of them turning into rags like the Inquirer by the 1970s.

Anyway, even on TV the most respected names in Journalism have been Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite...all from the era pre garbage modern journalism. I mean, who is a top journalist today? Wolf Blizter? Lol...