Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Interesting how a lot of really big twits say "interesting" when they mean "stupid", as if obfuscating what they really mean makes them sound smarter.

And by interesting, I mean annoying as fuck.

Hahahahahaha guilty as charged <3

[kaijyuu]

Isn't it impossible to have journalism without some sort of bias? "Neutrality" is just a golden mean fallacy and still has a bias (just that it's smack dab between two extremes). Also, trying to be as detached as possible can lead to some wacky crap; I would not at all be surprised to hear the BBC say something along the lines of "so and so committed genocide, which according to some is a horrible act."

[Graknorke]

Isn't it impossible to have journalism without some sort of bias? "Neutrality" is just a golden mean fallacy and still has a bias (just that it's smack dab between two extremes). Also, trying to be as detached as possible can lead to some wacky crap; I would not at all be surprised to hear the BBC say something along the lines of "so and so committed genocide, which according to some is a horrible act."

It's not for no reason though. They get accused of having a liberal bias by some organisation at least once a year.

[PatriotSaint]

Isn't it impossible to have journalism without some sort of bias? "Neutrality" is just a golden mean fallacy and still has a bias (just that it's smack dab between two extremes). Also, trying to be as detached as possible can lead to some wacky crap; I would not at all be surprised to hear the BBC say something along the lines of "so and so committed genocide, which according to some is a horrible act."

Anyone will say genocide is evil or call whatever they need to genocide until someone who they support does it themselves or endorses it.

As to neutrality, yes, amazingly it's possible to not put a pretty spin on everything and anything, for the idea that "everything is politics", and anything, absolutely anything can be used for an agenda. Every issue is a political issue, and it seems that the rule is that every issue MUST be turned into a political one, so why not use emotions, primarily hate, and envy, to drum up contention?

[PatriotSaint]

Isn't it impossible to have journalism without some sort of bias? "Neutrality" is just a golden mean fallacy and still has a bias (just that it's smack dab between two extremes). Also, trying to be as detached as possible can lead to some wacky crap; I would not at all be surprised to hear the BBC say something along the lines of "so and so committed genocide, which according to some is a horrible act."

It's not for no reason though. They get accused of having a liberal bias by some organisation at least once a year.

And you're saying they don't? Strange, people are usually proud about it.

Because "at least they aren't Republicans".

[Frumple]

Anything in that post you'd like to discuss now?

S'kinda' notable how you make the leap from "greater sanity" and "lesser evil" to "of sanity" and "greater good". The former doesn't necessarily imply the latter, especially when you're dealing with the american political scene. I haven't seen many people on any point of the political spectrum that has functioning eyes that thinks either party is actually sane or a net good. Just more or less worse than the other on particular issues. Seems to be a fairly steady constant among anyone who doesn't have the partisan prod lodged firmly in their cloaca, be they of a conservative or liberal slant.

But nah, the general hope that I've seen is that pretty much all of those entertainment news bastards choke on something and die. Fox is slightly (slightly) more egregious about their sorts bullshit, so there might be a bit more hope that it dies first (or perhaps just more spectacularly, haha!), but it's fairly standard crap across the spectrum. The larger news sources in the states are just kinda' scummy.

[PatriotSaint]

So I'm guessing the media out-of-state is just peachy.

[scriver]

He didn't say that. Remember how I gave you the advise to stop putting words in peoples mouths? Yeah, do that.

[Frumple]

... did anyone say it was? Major news sources in the states being crap doesn't mean it's better anywhere else. Doesn't mean it isn't, either, but not being among the entertainment news BS peddlers that dominate th'US's news doesn't entail anything in particular about them except that, y'know, they're not one of the (by and large unilaterally terrible, to varying degrees and in varying ways) major US new sources.

[PatriotSaint]

He didn't say that. Remember how I gave you the advise to stop putting words in peoples mouths? Yeah, do that.

Eh, perhaps I didn't say he did, and was just expecting an answer?

Anyway, if you have something to say, be my guest.

[Vector]

Anyone will say genocide is evil or call whatever they need to genocide until someone who they support does it themselves or endorses it.

Beg pardon?

[PatriotSaint]

Anyone will say genocide is evil or call whatever they need to genocide until someone who they support does it themselves or endorses it.

Beg pardon?

Ah, sorry bout that, I think "ignore it wholeheartedly, always" fits better.

Not necesarily BBC, but visions of Glorious Cuba and NK come to mind.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, putting words in my mouth there? Don't. I don't particularly like the Democrats either, and I think that they are neither sane nor good. They're just marginally less insane and evil, and that only because so many of them are too spineless to push their agenda at all costs. By the same token, all of the media channels are controlled by the same group of people, roughly speaking. Acting as if the political slant of any given newspaper or channel is somehow indicative of anything beyond the reader/viewership they're trying to grab is rather silly.

Anyhow, you caught me, PS. That's exactly what I am, a mindless sheep blindly following the One True Party, worshiping at the altar of the upholder of civil liberties. Bollocks. If this country had anything remotely resembling an actual leftist Social Democracy party that was genuinely trying to protect our civil rights, maybe I would fall in with them. But when the choice is between the "leftist" Democrats (and their supporters, who swallowed healthcare reform that forces citizens to buy a product on the open market as if it was somehow progressive!) who espouse the same policies that Reaganite Republicans did in the '80s, unelectable independents, conservative Republicans, and the batshit insane "tear-it-all-down" Teapartiers? Yeah, I'm absolutely filled with enthusiasm for all of these wonderful politicians who are no doubt even now planning further policies to protect our civil rights and balance the budget.

Take that with a grain of salt, though. I've been so embittered by U.S. politics that I can hardly even take them seriously these days.

[PatriotSaint]

So, it's a case of the media not being slanted enough (or at least the people who run it).

It's seems more and more like "at least they aren't those Republicans"

As if "Republican vs Democrat" means anything or ever did.

Also, you basically said that Democrats aren't the One True Party but if there was you "might fall in win them".

Weird, it's like this turned from "Fox is even more biased" to "if they were REALLY liberal I'd like the media for their slant".

(cue *putting words in mouth voice recording*)

Just wondering, do you live in the US?

[Ogdibus]

Interesting how a lot of really big twits say "interesting" when they mean "stupid", as if obfuscating what they really mean makes them sound smarter.

And by interesting, I mean annoying as fuck.

"May you live in interesting times" will never sound the same to me again.