• We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

Official War Room Awards 2017

tonni said:
tenor.gif
Click to expand...

I'm sorry your understanding of basic English is just as bad as @HomerThompson's
 
Lead said:
I think a certification could just be a voluntary thing that would work if people generally respected whatever board controlled it and what their standards were. I don't see that ever working though because it would just be demonized by either side as biased which wouldn't held give any merit to having the certification. Those work better in fields with more objectivity but it's be interesting to see a country try it. It wouldn't want the certification to get any recognition from the state either.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're rationalizing not forcing "news" outlets to report the facts in an objective manner via the usage of reasonably neutral language. Free speech doesn't include defrauding customers. I'm gonna bet there's far more to learn in health science than the disagreement arising from trying to determine the most connotative-free words in our language. Yet we have the FDA.

To point out, nothing is stopping people from continuing to sell opinion, satire, parody, vilification, etc. They just couldn't carry the distinction of news.

For anyone who believes firearms technology should give us pause to reconsider the 2nd, they couldn't honestly say those advances haven't been obliterated by what the internet has done to broadcasting a message and finding an audience.
 
lfd0311 said:
I'm sorry your understanding of basic English is just as bad as @HomerThompson's
Click to expand...

You see, this is where pathology begins. You are absolutely, definitively wrong, albeit on an arbitrary topic, and you're digging in. And you probably know that you're wrong, which is the real kicker.

"Whose" is a word, as evidenced by your google search. That doesn't mean your usage of it was right. It was not.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/whos-whose/
 
Trotsky said:
You see, this is where pathology begins. You are absolutely, definitively wrong, albeit on an arbitrary topic, and you're digging in. And you probably know that you're wrong, which is the real kicker.

"Whose" is a word, as evidenced by your google search. That doesn't mean your usage of it was right. It was not.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/whos-whose/
Click to expand...

definitively wrong.... you mean on say.... Obamacare?
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
Sounds like you're rationalizing not forcing "news" outlets to report the facts in an objective manner via the usage of reasonably neutral language. Free speech doesn't include defrauding customers. I'm gonna bet there's far more to learn in health science than the disagreement arising from trying to determine the most connotative-free words in our language. Yet we have the FDA.

To point out, nothing is stopping people from continuing to sell opinion, satire, parody, vilification, etc. They just couldn't carry the distinction of news.

For anyone who believes firearms technology should give us pause to reconsider the 2nd, they couldn't honestly say those advances haven't been obliterated by what the internet has done to broadcasting a message and finding an audience.
Click to expand...

The problem here is we are talking about it without any details to them. I'm a very hesitant person to create a new institution that would be thought to save our current problem. There are clear guidelines I think are possible to make news more objective but I don't know what this board would decide. Also, that wouldn't entirely defeat biased media with the certification because you can give certain issues a much larger spotlight than others or only present a portion of the story that helps paint the picture they want. It's not too easy to stop that because the board itself has to be informed on every topic moreso than the actual news agency. I agree the internet has done some damage (but also some good) to media and solutions will have to be sought out like possibly that one. I just don't know what is best to help solve the negatives at this point because human nature is the issue here. People are like moths to a click bait title and also want their news catered to agree with what they want to believe.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
Amazing that you can lose your shit on a me like that when your major contribution to the WR has been emojis and your played out grammar gimmick. You probably reported me, too.
Click to expand...
https://media.giphy.com/media/:eek::eek::eek:vFsTHxXd96/giphy.gif
 
Limbo Pete said:
<24>
Click to expand...


Sorry your thread got unstickied. It was the wrong thing to do.


Lead said:
The problem here is we are talking about it without any details to them. I'm a very hesitant person to create a new institution that would be thought to save our current problem. There are clear guidelines I think are possible to make news more objective but I don't know what this board would decide. Also, that wouldn't entirely defeat biased media with the certification because you can give certain issues a much larger spotlight than others or only present a portion of the story that helps paint the picture they want. It's not too easy to stop that because the board itself has to be informed on every topic moreso than the actual news agency. I agree the internet has done some damage (but also some good) to media and solutions will have to be sought out like possibly that one. I just don't know what is best to help solve the negatives at this point because human nature is the issue here. People are like moths to a click bait title and also want their news catered to agree with what they want to believe.
Click to expand...


I made the mistake of thinking you'd want to move past lamentation on on to problem-solving. :(:D
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
I made the mistake of thinking you'd want to move past lamentation on on to problem-solving. :(:D
Click to expand...

There are many ideas/solutions and I don't completely disagree with that one, especially if it is privatized. I just stay on the side of caution with an issue that could have pretty big consequences if we get it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,192
Messages
58,265,227
Members
175,986
Latest member
Dakota DeSousa

Share this page

Back
Top