|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 12, 2016 13:21:38 GMT -5
So, how about them Oilers? You'll seriously bring up a topic like that here? Geez, the nerve of some people! This is the Politics thread, not the Religion one! Hail Gretzky!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,762
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 12, 2016 14:36:03 GMT -5
Media has become so politicized that I have a hard time separating the biased news I receive from the objective news I receive. How serious is this push to recall Trump over alleged Soviet hacking? Sounded like a pipe dream at first, but NPR was talking about it being a bi-partisan effort this morning.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 12, 2016 14:43:49 GMT -5
Media has become so politicized that I have a hard time separating the biased news I receive from the objective news I receive. How serious is this push to recall Trump over alleged Soviet hacking? Sounded like a pipe dream at first, but NPR was talking about it being a bi-partisan effort this morning. My wife and I both use the BBC for our major news source, due to the politicization of the US media outlets on both sides. I check CNN for headlines, then go to the BBC's site to see what, if anything, they have on the subject, which can be very different at times.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 12, 2016 15:09:16 GMT -5
Media has become so politicized that I have a hard time separating the biased news I receive from the objective news I receive. How serious is this push to recall Trump over alleged Soviet hacking? Sounded like a pipe dream at first, but NPR was talking about it being a bi-partisan effort this morning. McCain and Graham are asking for a bipartisan inquiry, so there must be some interest on both sides of the aisles for it. EPOTUS Trump is however against the idea, apparently. Regarding news, it's indeed pretty hard to know whom to trust nowadays... not only because there is always the risk of bias, but mainly because news are more and more turning into clickbait material (even on some well-established websites and their affiliated newspapers or networks). A source I have enjoyed since the mid 90s is Foreign Affairs. It's not about current-current news since it consists of essays written a certain time after the facts they cover... but these essays are often written by the main actors. Condoleeza Rice, David Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, etc... Their credentials are clear, you know what their angle is, and since they're not limited to just a few columns they get the chance to really explain their views.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 15:26:28 GMT -5
Oh for the days when Hearst would pay people to start riots so he would have something to report or make up headlines (Remember the Maine) to influence public opinion on matters of international affairs. Things were so much better then...
fake news is just another name for propaganda, just its easier for people to spell...
remember the Pulitzer...the award for excellence in journalism...is named for a man who was just as happy to make news up when there was a slow news day as he was to be truthful in his reporting. The news media in America has never been a reliable source of information, it hasn't fallen recently it's just returned to its roots and not bothering with the illusion of respectability any more.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 12, 2016 15:52:59 GMT -5
"You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." -- Wm. Randolph Hearst "Journalistic practice was less influenced by the example of the editorial page of the World, however, than by the sensational selection and treatment of news. The tone of the paper was brisk and vivacious, the subject matter appealed to the emotions and interests of the largest number of people in the middle and lower classes. Wrongs of all sorts from which the people suffered were to be corrected by the exposure of startling examples. Naturally, having found the way to make a startling appeal through the recital of evil and misfortune, it was discovered that a similar appeal to any emotions produced much the same result, and yellow journalism was the inevitable sequel. The many papers which followed the example of Pulitzer lacked the fine purpose and the genius of their model, and therefore imitated only the blatancy, the vulgarity, the lack of restraint and of scruple which became an invariable part of the method." --The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21). VOLUME XVII. Later National Literature, Part II. § 15. Sensationalism; Joseph Pulitzer and the New York World. "Plus ça change..."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 16:51:11 GMT -5
WWE Co-Founder LINDA McMAHON is being picked by DONALD TRUMP to run Small Business Administration in recent news. From Wall Street Journal reported it.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 12, 2016 22:29:13 GMT -5
Media has become so politicized that I have a hard time separating the biased news I receive from the objective news I receive. How serious is this push to recall Trump over alleged Soviet hacking? Sounded like a pipe dream at first, but NPR was talking about it being a bi-partisan effort this morning. My wife and I both use the BBC for our major news source, due to the politicization of the US media outlets on both sides. I check CNN for headlines, then go to the BBC's site to see what, if anything, they have on the subject, which can be very different at times. I do that sometimes, too, but in many cases when it comes to politics they don't cover stuff. I will also sometimes read both CNN and Fox and take the average
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 13, 2016 1:25:24 GMT -5
I think it's really weird that anybody is acting like CNN is some kind of liberal version of Fox News. That's not my experience with CNN at all. They were continually bending over backwards to cushion Trump and make excuses for him all through the election at the same time they were trumpeting every meaningless innuendo about Clinton's emails and the Clinton Foundation and whatever.
Anybody who thinks "both sides are the same," feel free to disagree with me. But let's make a little more effort to back it up with evidence instead of just repeating the "both sides" mantra.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 13, 2016 8:33:38 GMT -5
I think it's really weird that anybody is acting like CNN is some kind of liberal version of Fox News. That's not my experience with CNN at all. They were continually bending over backwards to cushion Trump and make excuses for him all through the election at the same time they were trumpeting every meaningless innuendo about Clinton's emails and the Clinton Foundation and whatever. Agreed! CNN is to the left of Fox, but that's like saying Fox is to the left of Breitbart. To strike a balance with Fox, I would rather recommend to read The Nation.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 13, 2016 9:11:49 GMT -5
I think it's really weird that anybody is acting like CNN is some kind of liberal version of Fox News. That's not my experience with CNN at all. They were continually bending over backwards to cushion Trump and make excuses for him all through the election at the same time they were trumpeting every meaningless innuendo about Clinton's emails and the Clinton Foundation and whatever. Anybody who thinks "both sides are the same," feel free to disagree with me. But let's make a little more effort to back it up with evidence instead of just repeating the "both sides" mantra. The liberal equivalent of Fox is The Young Turks.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 13, 2016 9:24:47 GMT -5
I think it's really weird that anybody is acting like CNN is some kind of liberal version of Fox News. That's not my experience with CNN at all. They were continually bending over backwards to cushion Trump and make excuses for him all through the election at the same time they were trumpeting every meaningless innuendo about Clinton's emails and the Clinton Foundation and whatever. Agreed! CNN is to the left of Fox, but that's like saying Fox is to the left of Breitbart. To strike a balance with Fox, I would rather recommend to read The Nation. "The Nation" may be as far to the left as Fox is to the right. But let's not pretend that their journalistic ethics are the same. "The Nation" does not report and normalize utter falsehoods. Fox does it all the time. "The Nation" has much higher standards. Much much higher.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 13, 2016 9:31:00 GMT -5
The liberal equivalent of Fox is The Young Turks. In one way perhaps, but certainly not in viewership/impact. FOX News is watched far more than the YT YouTube channel, I'm sure. So FOX in my mind has far more of an impact in molding opinions. They may have a smaller viewership, but they still employ the same fear mongering and pandering tactics as Fox does.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 13, 2016 9:45:58 GMT -5
In one way perhaps, but certainly not in viewership/impact. FOX News is watched far more than the YT YouTube channel, I'm sure. So FOX in my mind has far more of an impact in molding opinions. They may have a smaller viewership, but they still employ the same fear mongering and pandering tactics as Fox does. Uh, no.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 13, 2016 9:53:53 GMT -5
Agreed! CNN is to the left of Fox, but that's like saying Fox is to the left of Breitbart. To strike a balance with Fox, I would rather recommend to read The Nation. "The Nation" may be as far to the left as Fox is to the right. But let's not pretend that their journalistic ethics are the same. "The Nation" does not report and normalize utter falsehoods. Fox does it all the time. "The Nation" has much higher standards. Much much higher. That is true.
|
|