Print

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

[sluissa]

Responding to the previous topic about the gif tweet:
Let's be fair. CNN earned the name titles Fake and Fraud legitimately. They do nothing to help a cause by pushing narratives. Same with the other cable news outlets, MSNBC, FOX, even the broadcast news networks aren't innocent.

We need the news to do their due diligence in making sure that what they're reporting is true and accurate to the best of their abilities. When they're caught in lies it erodes their credibility. When you've got the president claiming that what they're reporting is fake, and given that it's more important than ever that we keep our politicians honest with double checking what they say, and reporting on when they're lying. It breaks the whole system if what the news is reporting actually IS fake.

At this point many of us know the president is feeding us bullshit. But now we also know the news are feeding us bullshit as well. We've lost any and all ammunition to use to convince anyone that DOES believe the president simply because the people who hate him are impatient and willing to push stories that aren't backed up.

I dislike Trump. But when the opposition is so freakin' inept and end up burning down the armory with the weapons inside when we need them the most... well, it's perfectly understandable how we ended up in this situation in the first place.

Because they made a mistake and then recanted it? You do have a point that the same attitude is common accross all newsrooms since it's a pretty universial problem, some have more of a problem than others, and then you've got the echo chamber bubble blinders which affect some more than others.

The problem was they pushed a narrative harder than it should have been with no solid evidence to back it up, A: Because some of their staff have erected hate shrines in their wardrobes to Trump and B: Simply because it makes them more money, gets them more clicks, sells them more ads. They only recanted after they were caught red handed at it.

[wierd]

This has been an observation of mine:

Media people, like the anchor that was stirring up outrage over the .GIF, get all bent out of shape as soon as a reporter, anchor, or other news-related industry type person gets something nasty happening to them, but are otherwise there like hungry cats at a bowl of warm cream for anyone else's pain and suffering.


In the 90s, you had re-run disaster porn of the Oklahoma city bombing.
In the early 2000s, you had re-run disaster porn of the september 11 terror attack.

Did the media even once give a damn about triggering PTSD in people? FUCK NO-- They cared about the fucking ratings, and opening up old wounds to let them bleed sure gets people excited!

Yet, as soon as something bad happens to a SINGLE PERSON who works for the news industry-- Oh gawds, it's the end of the universe.

This bleeds through with the "begging the question" pre-conceived notion that the GIF should induce outrage and hatred at the president, since it features an functional effigy of CNN getting beat up by the president. Rather than report that "Yes, the president made an interesting tweet today", we get instead "OMG! HOW HORRIBLE!! YOU-- WHITEHOUSE CORRESPONDENT!! ANSWER FOR THIS HEINOUS CRIME!! HOW DO YOU FEEL WORKING FOR SUCH A MONSTER!?"

Sorry, but I have no sympathies for our news media in this. Nobody was actually hurt-- the video in question was staged (being pro-wrestling in origin), and the media just has their panties in a wad because it makes them sad pandas.

Screw them.

[PTTG??]

This has been an observation of mine:

Media people, like the anchor that was stirring up outrage over the .GIF, get all bent out of shape as soon as a reporter, anchor, or other news-related industry type person gets something nasty happening to them, but are otherwise there like hungry cats at a bowl of warm cream for anyone else's pain and suffering.


In the 90s, you had re-run disaster porn of the Oklahoma city bombing.
In the early 2000s, you had re-run disaster porn of the september 11 terror attack.

Did the media even once give a damn about triggering PTSD in people? FUCK NO-- They cared about the fucking ratings, and opening up old wounds to let them bleed sure gets people excited!

Yet, as soon as something bad happens to a SINGLE PERSON who works for the news industry-- Oh gawds, it's the end of the universe.

This bleeds through with the "begging the question" pre-conceived notion that the GIF should induce outrage and hatred at the president, since it features an functional effigy of CNN getting beat up by the president. Rather than report that "Yes, the president made an interesting tweet today", we get instead "OMG! HOW HORRIBLE!! YOU-- WHITEHOUSE CORRESPONDENT!! ANSWER FOR THIS HEINOUS CRIME!! HOW DO YOU FEEL WORKING FOR SUCH A MONSTER!?"

Sorry, but I have no sympathies for our news media in this. Nobody was actually hurt-- the video in question was staged (being pro-wrestling in origin), and the media just has their panties in a wad because it makes them sad pandas.

Screw them.

If you're saying that any group that isn't 100% perfect deserves to be attacked, then you're saying that everyone deserves to be attacked.

[wierd]

No, I am saying people that are hypocritical dont deserve the same level of compassion that people who are genuinely innocent do, and that I have significantly less compassion for groups or industries that engage in shameless double standards.

To wit-- I mentioned the september 11 disaster porn re-run marathon that most of the media engaged in every september 11 for the next 3 years. They got written PLEAS, BEGGING them to stop from families that lost infant children, brothers, sisters, husbands to the tragedy that were trying to move on with their lives-- but were getting constantly blindsided every year by the media who wanted to spin the tragedy into ratings.  Did the media stop? NO-- they kept doing it, until it lost its media pizazz.

When an industry indicates, through its own direct action, that it is heartless scum, while then expecting the very same people they brutally traumatized repeatedly for ratings to become outraged at their behalf over a damned tweet, I'm sorry, just NO.

[smjjames]

This has been an observation of mine:

Media people, like the anchor that was stirring up outrage over the .GIF, get all bent out of shape as soon as a reporter, anchor, or other news-related industry type person gets something nasty happening to them, but are otherwise there like hungry cats at a bowl of warm cream for anyone else's pain and suffering.


In the 90s, you had re-run disaster porn of the Oklahoma city bombing.
In the early 2000s, you had re-run disaster porn of the september 11 terror attack.

Did the media even once give a damn about triggering PTSD in people? FUCK NO-- They cared about the fucking ratings, and opening up old wounds to let them bleed sure gets people excited!

Yet, as soon as something bad happens to a SINGLE PERSON who works for the news industry-- Oh gawds, it's the end of the universe.

This bleeds through with the "begging the question" pre-conceived notion that the GIF should induce outrage and hatred at the president, since it features an functional effigy of CNN getting beat up by the president. Rather than report that "Yes, the president made an interesting tweet today", we get instead "OMG! HOW HORRIBLE!! YOU-- WHITEHOUSE CORRESPONDENT!! ANSWER FOR THIS HEINOUS CRIME!! HOW DO YOU FEEL WORKING FOR SUCH A MONSTER!?"

Sorry, but I have no sympathies for our news media in this. Nobody was actually hurt-- the video in question was staged (being pro-wrestling in origin), and the media just has their panties in a wad because it makes them sad pandas.

Screw them.

If you're saying that any group that isn't 100% perfect deserves to be attacked, then you're saying that everyone deserves to be attacked.

He didn't say anything about being 100% correct, he was saying about the re-run porn of disaster stuff that networks have a thing with in the 24hour news cycle.

editwhiletypingbecausenewpost: And hypocrisy, that too.

[Starver]

The problem isn't with MM being biased, it's with non-MM calling out MM for being biased at the drop of a hat, devaluing whichever party a particular believer is currently actively disbelieving.

When the Daily Fail actually treats the story with apparent fairness it puts into perspective how much agenda-pushing the Alt people must be deliberately pursuing, much more fake than that which they have claimed as fake.

[Rolan7]

I don't think it's that wrong to memorialize and discuss freakin 9/11 for a few years on anniversaries.  It's not like the media spun 9/11 into a big deal, it was sorta the crux of all the shit that was happening. 

I agree they over-cover stuff sometimes.  At what point does it stop being news and become "disaster porn"?  And at what point are they hypocritical for wanting to live?  I guess these days we automatically feel contempt for people claiming persecution, but these people *are* the press, so it actually *is* particularly important that they feel safe.  That's the actual meaning of free speech.

Trump can call them fake news all he wants, that's his right.  This is him beating the shit out of them in effigy.  When powerless people do that we get very worried, call them rioters- how should we take it from the leader of the free world?

I don't think it's a threat of violence.  It's a demonstration that he has no respect for the press, and that his administration will back up whatever measure, short of actual physical violence, he takes.

[Egan_BW]

short of actual physical violence

We assume.

[smjjames]

The thing is that, as a person in a position of power, he acts as a role model. Most people won't actually go so far as be violent towards the media, but theres always going to be a few who decide that Trump is telling them to beat up the media.

Of course there will always be the crazies and unhinged, but what matters is the tone.

[hector13]

short of actual physical violence

We assume.

Trump isn't encouraging physical violence man, quite the opposite... or whatever it is the shite the PR folk are pushing.

I imagine if it does bubble over that particular line, then it'll be "well they deserved it, didn't they?" and his supporters will continue supporting.

[wierd]

I don't think it's that wrong to memorialize and discuss freakin 9/11 for a few years on anniversaries.  It's not like the media spun 9/11 into a big deal, it was sorta the crux of all the shit that was happening. 

I agree they over-cover stuff sometimes.  At what point does it stop being news and become "disaster porn"?  And at what point are they hypocritical for wanting to live?  I guess these days we automatically feel contempt for people claiming persecution, but these people *are* the press, so it actually *is* particularly important that they feel safe.  That's the actual meaning of free speech.

Trump can call them fake news all he wants, that's his right.  This is him beating the shit out of them in effigy.  When powerless people do that we get very worried, call them rioters- how should we take it from the leader of the free world?

I don't think it's a threat of violence.  It's a demonstration that he has no respect for the press, and that his administration will back up whatever measure, short of actual physical violence, he takes.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with a tasteful and short moment of reflection concerning the terror attack, but it is entirely another to whip out "the footage" EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. 

It is sufficient to say "On today, September the eleventh, we take this moment to give our sympathies to the families of the people who lost their lives this day when terrorists destroyed the trade centers. (5 seconds pause)-- in the news today----"

It is inappropriate to go on a video montage of bodies falling, fire, smoke, footage of planes colliding with buildings, et al, which is what I distinctly remember happening for the next 3 years after the event, and is what I was referring to.

Please do not conflate the two.


As for the intent of Trump's now infamous tweet--  The impression I got from it was more "I am not above putting the smack down on you (figuratively) for spreading outright mistruths to further your political agenda against me."  EG, "I will call you out on it, and wont be bashful about it."

I did not take it to mean "Watch out CNN reporters! I will totally body slam your bitch asses into the floor for daring to disagree with me or my party's line!!"

Is Trump a good man? FUCK NO.
Is trump as smart man? FUCK NO.
Is trump a violent man? There is no real evidence to support that.

Given those things, I feel it is smarter to interpret the message as "I are not smart man who uses over the top messages when he should be subtle-- giving an over the top message about my intention to put you back on the straight and narrow of supportable, fact based reporting."

I am by no means a trump supporter, I just refuse to comply with the in-crowd's button pushing on my emotional center.

[EnigmaticHat]

This has been an observation of mine:

Media people, like the anchor that was stirring up outrage over the .GIF, get all bent out of shape as soon as a reporter, anchor, or other news-related industry type person gets something nasty happening to them, but are otherwise there like hungry cats at a bowl of warm cream for anyone else's pain and suffering.


In the 90s, you had re-run disaster porn of the Oklahoma city bombing.
In the early 2000s, you had re-run disaster porn of the september 11 terror attack.

Did the media even once give a damn about triggering PTSD in people? FUCK NO-- They cared about the fucking ratings, and opening up old wounds to let them bleed sure gets people excited!

Yet, as soon as something bad happens to a SINGLE PERSON who works for the news industry-- Oh gawds, it's the end of the universe.

This bleeds through with the "begging the question" pre-conceived notion that the GIF should induce outrage and hatred at the president, since it features an functional effigy of CNN getting beat up by the president. Rather than report that "Yes, the president made an interesting tweet today", we get instead "OMG! HOW HORRIBLE!! YOU-- WHITEHOUSE CORRESPONDENT!! ANSWER FOR THIS HEINOUS CRIME!! HOW DO YOU FEEL WORKING FOR SUCH A MONSTER!?"

Sorry, but I have no sympathies for our news media in this. Nobody was actually hurt-- the video in question was staged (being pro-wrestling in origin), and the media just has their panties in a wad because it makes them sad pandas.

Screw them.

I went to college in the heart of Boston and I remember when the marathon bombing happened.  Someone had recorded direct footage of a bomb going off in a crowd; I've avoided it but I'm told it was pretty graphic.  Anyway, not everyone responds to texts instantly because people are like that, so it took about a day to determine who had and hadn't been there (IIRC none of them died but at least one person saw the attack happen).  So when the major networks repeatedly aired the clip of the attacks happening, the students were still uncertain if their friends were OK or more attacks would happen.  A lot of them watched the news in crowded common rooms and all of their fear and sadness played off of each other, it was a mess.

So yeah I see where you're coming from.  But I'm a believer that the punishment should match the crime.  Blood and guts reporting is unrelated to Trump and his feud with CNN does nothing to solve it.  More to the point, he's the president.  Its not appropriate behavior for a lot of reasons.

[misko27]

I get annoyed when people say "Well Trump is doing this thing, but really if he were a reasonable person and he wasn't doing it for utterly inane reasons he'd have a point."

We don't live in the universe where that is true. We live in this universe, where his skepticism in NATO, for example, is not rooted in a reasonable skepticism of the value of vaguely-defined global military alliances, but a somewhat bizarre assertion that we are not sufficiently top-dog in said alliance, and a rather suspicious friendliness for the interests of a rival power. His skepticism of the press is not for the nonsense they produce, but precisely for the non-nonsense they produce; in fact he is quite fond of nonsense, observe his association with the National Enquierer. At best he apes the motions of a cultural critic, but this is really not borne out by his, well, anything.

[wierd]

"Truth" and Fact are very distinct concepts though Misko. 

Trump is upset that CNN and pals are reporting "Truth" (as they see it), instead of "Truth" (as Trump sees it), and I am upset at them both for failing to report Facts. (Those things that are objectively demonstrable, and have evidence to back them up.)

No question that Trump is very much in love with his own unique brand of batshit propaganda. I wont question that assertion at all-- it is demonstrable fact. (One of the reasons he appears to have fired Comey is because Comey refused to play that game, and stuck hard-line to procedure and protocol, like a real professional should, instead of giving Trump his "Loyalty.")

This distinction between "Truth" and Fact is one of the amusing talking points behind John Oliver's This Week Tonight, and the whole "Truthiness!" meme of a few years ago.

Truthiness is not something that exists in just one side of the aisle though-- the CNN scandal is clearly illustrative of that. Just because the other guy does it too does not make it acceptable. The news is supposed to report Fact, not "Truth."

[Dorsidwarf]

Wait, what scandal do we mean now ? The only one mentioned in the thread recently was the one fabricated by idiots about a ""fake protest"" because the reporters wanted a good shot of the protestors when they came over to the media from where the police were corralling them?