Automatik;1861633 wrote:Fucking hilarious. You're one of, if not, the worst offender for posting garbage news sources.

Hell, today, he posted a pro-Trump story based on his meeting in Poland with the disclaimer that none of the mainstream news places would cover it. The source: some random right-wing blog!

These liberal need outlets are blowing a gasket today trying to find a reason to blast Trump today. His overseas speech is winning bigly.

QuakerOats;1861580 wrote:Morning Joe crew spent yet another entire broadcast today bashing the president; not even one tiny ounce of balance; they are completely worthless and irrelevant at this point.

Not to you there're not. It appears you watch the program from beginning to end.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1861643 wrote:Not to you there're not. It appears you watch the program from beginning to end.

Maybe he is Trump. Cries about the "fake news" media all the time while making it blatantly obvious he spends more time watching them than doing any other thing in life.

BoatShoes;1861627 wrote:NPR offers straight news, insightful stories (e.g. Marketplace series on Erie County, PA switching to Trump is great) with insightful commentary from all sides and the reporters press the commentators fairly and persistently.

All of the press is inherently biased to one extent or another. Always has been because it is made up of human beings who in order to be unbiased would have to harness their personal beliefs in order to deliver "straight" news. That against the executives who lord over them. The idea that the elimination of the profit margin and media competition will eliminate bias is flawed. In fact history proves the opposite.

The 1st amendment protection of the freedom of the press has at its heart the protection of opinionated news not "straight" news. Yes "fake news" existed in the 18th century. The founders believed that the individual should have all opinions/news available and be trusted to make judgement for themselves.

One thing I have never done is discount an opinion citing a supposedly biased news source. I'll dispute in on the facts if warranted. Sometimes even the most biased of media outlets contain a nugget a reasonable individual can toss on his balance when weighing the truth. I for one do not miss the days of waiting for Peter Jennings @ 6:30 or Ted Koppel @ 11:30. Be thankful. Some of you people do not remember the days of the big media monopoly.

As for NPR they offer some straight news and I will listen and weigh them in the balance. Yet they fired one of my favorite "liberal" commentators who though I often disagree I greatly valued his opinions for running afoul of political correctness. Point is they are not a neutral entity just because they are publically funded. No one is public or private.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1861643 wrote:Not to you there're not. It appears you watch the program from beginning to end.

No I don't. I wouldn't waste my time.

It is the strategic construction of the stories by the biased media that should be alarming. Most people don't dig into the details and seek all the facts; they are targets for swaying by the liberal media. The headlines are so often misleading, the articles slanted, and if there is credible information that supports the other side it is buried or left out completely. The media, the democrat party, and BIG government bureaucracy are one-and-the-same. It is sickening that the profession of journalism in many cases has shrunk to the level of trial lawyers.

Ironically, it was the NPR poll that just came out that says people trust the Trump admin more than the media. No shit.

QuakerOats;1861695 wrote:No I don't. I wouldn't waste my time.

Well you seem to know what goes on during the entire broadcast. It doesn't seem like anyone watches the show except for hard core conservatives that want to point out the program's faults and to justify Trump's childish behavior.

QuakerOats;1861696 wrote:
Ironically, it was the NPR poll that just came out that says people trust the Trump admin more than the media. No shit.

I thought it was funny they included that 61% of the public do not trust public opinion polls in their public opinion poll.

QuakerOats;1861588 wrote:I can handle the truth; I would just like to see it once in a while.

gosh a ruddies then stay off fox and the other rightwing propaganda sources.

QuakerOats;1861696 wrote:It is the strategic construction of the stories by the biased media that should be alarming. Most people don't dig into the details and seek all the facts; they are targets for swaying by the liberal media. The headlines are so often misleading, the articles slanted, and if there is credible information that supports the other side it is buried or left out completely.

Fox does all that, too. But it's why you need Fox to bring some balance and keep the liberal media somewhat honest.

And it's why Fox has been under attack for years by liberals and the mainstream media because it's largely the only thing standing in the way of their propaganda and narrative. When you see conservatives and conservative media getting the Saul Alinsky treatment you know there's something going on.

isadore;1861768 wrote:gosh a ruddies then stay off fox and the other rightwing propaganda sources.

I read and listen to economic and financial reports and data. And I understand the effects of public policy on investment, job creation, wage growth, budgets, and human behavior.

You might try doing the same and ditching msnbc. Good luck.

Spock;1861578 wrote:even if it is fake and sends the incorrect message to the world than what is actually happening? I guess the world should of just listened to Hitlers media and propaganda machine......No he should show the world that free press is outweighed by free speech by anyone and everyone.

First, a propaganda machine that is used BY the leader of a country is not the same as a (for our discussion purposes here) propaganda machine going against the leader of a country.

Second, if he wants be critical, which I don't mind inherently, he ought to point out the specifics that are untrue in the coverage.

Instead, what we're getting is, "Nope, that's not true, because it's fake." No substance. No evidence. No demonstration that it's fake. Nada.

Ultimately, I would think he'd have enough to do himself that he wouldn't have time to spend on criticism of media outlets, but if we're going to attack a source, we should probably attack the points made within the source, or at the very least point out if it doesn't give anything to substantiate its claims. SOMEthing other than just attacking the source, which is as ad hominem as it gets.

BoatShoes;1861627 wrote:NPR offers straight news, insightful stories (e.g. Marketplace series on Erie County, PA switching to Trump is great) with insightful commentary from all sides and the reporters press the commentators fairly and persistently.

You still see some slants here and there, but those are pretty specific within NPR. Generally, this is true.

QuakerOats;1861696 wrote:Ironically, it was the NPR poll that just came out that says people trust the Trump admin more than the media. No shit.

This isn't really ironic. What do you think "ironic" means?

QuakerOats;1861851 wrote:I read and listen to economic and financial reports and data. And I understand the effects of public policy on investment, job creation, wage growth, budgets, and human behavior.

You might try doing the same and ditching msnbc. Good luck.

Where, pray tell, do you find these reports and this data?

O-Trap;1861865 wrote:
Second, if he wants be critical, which I don't mind inherently, he ought to point out the specifics that are untrue in the coverage.

Instead, what we're getting is, "Nope, that's not true, because it's fake." No substance. No evidence. No demonstration that it's fake. Nada.

Kind of hard to prove the negative is it not?

"Otrap is a racist", ok Otrap, prove me wrong as "fake news"...

I am not defending Trump and his insanity, but you know that defending/proving something is fake/false is nearly impossible.

jmog;1861885 wrote:Kind of hard to prove the negative is it not?

"Otrap is a racist", ok Otrap, prove me wrong as "fake news"...

I am not defending Trump and his insanity, but you know that defending/proving something is fake/false is nearly impossible.

It is indeed hard to prove a negative without specificity. However, the (usually affirmative) claims in media are generally specific enough to disprove by raising defeaters.

There is a difference between proving a negative and disproving an affirmative.

To answer your question about me being a racist, I don't have to prove you wrong. All I have to do is require you to submit evidence for your affirmative claim. I gain no ground by just saying, "No; you're wrong," if I provide no reason why you ought to be ignored.

O-Trap;1861887 wrote:It is indeed hard to prove a negative without specificity. However, the (usually affirmative) claims in media are generally specific enough to disprove by raising defeaters.

There is a difference between proving a negative and disproving an affirmative.

To answer your question about me being a racist, I don't have to prove you wrong. All I have to do is require you to submit evidence for your affirmative claim. I gain no ground by just saying, "No; you're wrong," if I provide no reason why you ought to be ignored.

But a good amount of the stuff thrown out at the current admin is not specifics that can be proven false, they are just like the "you're racist" claim. No specifics and no way to prove the negative.

jmog;1861899 wrote:But a good amount of the stuff thrown out at the current admin is not specifics that can be proven false, they are just like the "you're racist" claim. No specifics and no way to prove the negative.

Indeed, which is why I added that last part.

You don't have to disprove them. You have to simply force them to put forth evidence of their affirmative claim.

"I'm racist? Is that so? What makes you think I'm racist? Are you claiming to know my motivations for acting in the ways I have? What is it that you point to that says I am racist?"

lol Fox news reporting the stock market is crashing after Trump Jr. releases his e-mails.

The Dow is not even down 1/2% ..............little ado about nothing.

QuakerOats;1861947 wrote:The Dow is not even down 1/2% ..............little ado about nothing.

Let me rephrase what is going and tell me you wouldn't freak out.
What if Chelsea Clinton released an email chain confirming she met with Chinese attorneys that said they had government sponsored dirty information about Trump and the Trump organization?
You would lose your shit and be yelling to lock her up.

That is pretty much what Trump Jr just did and the NYT reported on.
He just confirmed he knew he was meeting a Russia and if they had Clinton dirt from hacks or whatever means, great.

ptown_trojans_1;1861948 wrote:Let me rephrase what is going and tell me you wouldn't freak out.
What if Chelsea Clinton released an email chain confirming she met with Chinese attorneys that said they had government sponsored dirty information about Trump and the Trump organization?
You would lose your shit and be yelling to lock her up.

That is pretty much what Trump Jr just did and the NYT reported on.
He just confirmed he knew he was meeting a Russia and if they had Clinton dirt from hacks or whatever means, great.

Again, and I appear to be on an island, I would care equally as much about the content as the source.

ptown_trojans_1;1861948 wrote:Let me rephrase what is going and tell me you wouldn't freak out.
What if Chelsea Clinton released an email chain confirming she met with Chinese attorneys that said they had government sponsored dirty information about Trump and the Trump organization?
You would lose your shit and be yelling to lock her up.

That is pretty much what Trump Jr just did and the NYT reported on.
He just confirmed he knew he was meeting a Russia and if they had Clinton dirt from hacks or whatever means, great.

LOL, not quite.


By the way, the DNC and media did all they could to get (or fabricate) every speck of dirt on Trump (and continue to), as they do with all their opponents, and they obviously colluded to strategically release material in such a fashion to do the most damage. To my knowledge, there is nothing illegal about it. That swamp is a nasty place, in dire need of draining.

Just so we are clear, Donald Trump Jr did nothing wrong then in your view and you would have been totally cool is Clinton did the same thing?
No harm, no foul?
You are cool with a member of a campaign meeting with a foreign government official to discuss opposition research?
(The email chain Trump Jr released stated he knew it was a Russian Government official and knew it was for opposition research purposes)

ptown_trojans_1;1861956 wrote:You are cool with a member of a campaign meeting with a foreign government official to discuss opposition research?

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I imagine that anyone would take any dirt from any source if they could establish truth to it. What is the difference between a Russian hacker and an American hacker? Do I think it is sleazy? Sure.
And I honestly don't know, is there a law against any of it (based on your "lock her up" comment)?

iclfan2;1861957 wrote:Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I imagine that anyone would take any dirt from any source if they could establish truth to it. What is the difference between a Russian hacker and an American hacker? Do I think it is sleazy? Sure.
And I honestly don't know, is there a law against any of it (based on your "lock her up" comment)?

It's the Russian fucking government! Not just a run of the mill hacker.