SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 13, 2019 11:28:02 GMT -8
#FakeNews will be on his headstone! That alone is a major accomplishment for the American people.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 13, 2019 14:12:04 GMT -8
Donald Trump's tweets have made it impossible for the Left to control the agenda and to along their preferred narrative--which is almost always a dishonest one. He fights back in a way they have never encountered, which sucks up all the oxygen in the room. They are daily mocked and scolded by the Bad Orange Man. As important, he also brings attention to the positive news (economic or political) from his administration that the mainstream media refuses to cover. Brilliant. 2 points here that are spot on. He fights back in a way they (we) have never encountered from a president. The closest I've seen to his fire is Ahmadinejad, but in fairness, he may have been suffering from Napoleon Complex. The other is the 5 minute news cycle take of items the mainstream media can't keep up with / won't cover. Very good take. |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Mar 17, 2019 5:57:22 GMT -8
While I completely agree that some news has such a strong bias, the best description of it really is "Fake News", the frequency with which Trump uses the term is very dangerous. What's interesting to me is that few of his supports seem to be concerned about the long term implications of a free press being undermined in such a way. Our Democracy only works if we have an informed electorate. It is literally impossible to be informed without the press. Despite the obvious bias of some media outlets, many really do provide good information. Declaring any outlet that disagrees with the current administration is "Fake" is very bad. Very very bad.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 17, 2019 6:32:18 GMT -8
While I completely agree that some news has such a strong bias, the best description of it really is "Fake News", the frequency with which Trump uses the term is very dangerous. What's interesting to me is that few of his supports seem to be concerned about the long term implications of a free press being undermined in such a way. Our Democracy only works if we have an informed electorate. It is literally impossible to be informed without the press. Despite the obvious bias of some media outlets, many really do provide good information. Declaring any outlet that disagrees with the current administration is "Fake" is very bad. Very very bad. I agree we need an informed electorate, but disagree that labeling the various news outlets as FakeNews is inherently bad. By doing so, I think it forces those willing to be informed to take some time to actually vet the information before deriving a conclusion from what they just read. I've got very little confidence in the news and what comes out of people's mouths today. Very little confidence. In fact, I've got more confidence in the group here than pretty much anyone else as it relates to the topics shown on this board. We have demonstrated a willingness to listen, and a willingness to be wrong. Where else can we find those conditions? |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 17, 2019 7:08:05 GMT -8
Why is calling out the press undermining them? It's their actions, misinformation and misguided hate and bias that has them being called out as #FakeNews.
It would be like cheating continuously in a checkers tournament and someone calling me a cheater yet by your analogy my cheating is undermining the game of checkers.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 17, 2019 8:32:41 GMT -8
By doing so, I think it forces those willing to be informed to take some time to actually vet the information before deriving a conclusion from what they just read. I've got very little confidence in the news and what comes out of people's mouths today. Very little confidence I guess l'm confused. If we need to vet what we are told by the media, but we have little confidence in the news or what people are saying, just how are we supposed to vet anything? |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 17, 2019 9:10:58 GMT -8
Get other perspectives, and decide for yourself what the real story is.
Is this a trick question MDD?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 17, 2019 14:48:56 GMT -8
That sounds great. But "other perspectives" come either from other news outlets or people talking on the internet or social media...all with vested interests and agendas. So again, how do we vet?
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Mar 17, 2019 14:53:33 GMT -8
That sounds great. But "other perspectives" come either from other news outlets or people talking on the internet or social media...all with vested interests and agendas. So again, how do we vet? I'm with Bick on this. If all outlets agree on an issue...no problem. If they don't it will be just like the election pamphlets that give arguments for, and arguments against, and you make your decision after reading both. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 17, 2019 15:42:04 GMT -8
So what we call "vetting" is just choosing from different versions of a story the one that best fits your ideology or point of view?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Mar 17, 2019 15:51:58 GMT -8
So what we call "vetting" is just choosing from different versions of a story the one that best fits your ideology or point of view? That might be what it has become, but it should be a sifting process that eventually arrives at truth. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 17, 2019 18:18:12 GMT -8
So what we call "vetting" is just choosing from different versions of a story the one that best fits your ideology or point of view? You can exclude me from the we you're referring to. If that truly is your position, and my reading your posts these past few years tells me otherwise, I'd say that thinking need only find an outlet that parallels whatever ideology that's subscribed to and just go with their reporting as accurate. If objectivity matters, then it looks like we'll have to dig a little deeper, and HOPE we get close to the mark. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 17, 2019 21:24:02 GMT -8
Bick, I'm only asking the question. With all news outlets, websites and social media posts slanted, biased, or furthering a political agenda, how can we vet anything?
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Mar 17, 2019 21:56:00 GMT -8
First focus on verifying WHAT happened from different perspectives, and ignore the editorializing. Then come to your own conclusions why it happened.
Covington kids is a prime example. The first angle from CNN was very misleading...you know the rest.
I also think a lot of what gets claimed can be verified independently away from news outlets. Crime stats, polls, global temperatures, ocean level, etc.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Mar 17, 2019 22:24:00 GMT -8
So what we call "vetting" is just choosing from different versions of a story the one that best fits your ideology or point of view? That might be what it has become, but it should be a sifting process that eventually arrives at truth. We definitely don't want to be promoting a process of "confirmation bias", by which one attributes confidence in a story that typically make your ideological opponent look as bad as possible. That's how we got to this entire hysteria over Russia-gate, where bias triumphs over facts. Sifting over multiple news accounts may be necessary, until one arrives at the account that actually conforms to the FACTS. |
|
