CenterBHSFan;1838651 wrote:I read the majority of the posts on this page and I'm actually reading "Nothing to see here!" Come on.

I'll be a voice of dissent, I guess. When you have media outlets who already noticeably lean left, at least slightly, that have journalists cry because their idol lost an election, when these media outlets cut mics, disrupting opposing points of view, etc., they are more than just slanted. They are more than just giving op-ed pieces. They are flat out political affiliates at that point.
Don't believe it? When Mika Brzezinski put one toe off of the party line platform for half of a second, her boss's boss called to make sure she was properly put back into place.

You can certainly make the distinction between slanted and fake, sure. But when that same person, Mika Brzezinski, says in a less substantial voice than normal that it is her/"our" job to manipulate what the public thinks, that's more than just slanted and biased. It's highly immoral and deceptive.

Nobody's arguing that point. But again, you're referring to a specific person saying something. Brzezwtfisthisname isn't exactly a big wig within the organization.

I'm not saying there's nothing to see here. I thought I was pretty clear in saying that the slants in the media are a significant problem. I'm simply saying that the problem in question is far more plausible as having a different motivation as opposed to being the orchestration of some secret, government-connected brain trust hellbent on mass though control.

Azubuike24;1838653 wrote:See I disagree that the MSM isn't the same entity. Not on the surface. The control goes much higher than the CEO's and shareholders of the companies. They simply censor what they don't want to be shown and that's not the true spirit of our Constitution.

Who is this single-minded entity that controls all the media?

ptown_trojans_1;1838654 wrote:We all cool with the NYT, LA Times, and CNN not being allowed to attend the daily briefing/ meeting today?

Seems a little petty to me and a bad precedent.

More than just a little petty. That was sophomoric. And it seems consistent with a capricious child.

Azubuike24;1838655 wrote:...plus, the fight isn't about left or right. It's about someone else deciding what you can see. My take...if someone catches it on film, I don't care what it is, if it's news, it's news.

The film typically gets framed by narration, though, and herein lies where slant can so easily work.

O-Trap;1838660 wrote:Who is this single-minded entity that controls all the media?

The Illuminati, duh!

Heretic;1838661 wrote:The Illuminati, duh!

I would have also accepted George Soros or the Rothschilds.

More distracting news.....MSM and left sites today are all about blasting conservative lawmakers not showing up for "town hall" meetings hosted "in their honor". Marco Rubio fresh off a trip to Europe related to his position on the Foreign Affairs committee was chased by protesters asking (demanding) that he attend town hall meetings so his "constituents" can have "access". Rubio ducked and weaved and refused to go. This of course, is news. Republican lawmakers not walking into an ambush is news.
Stop pretending that these "town halls" sponsored by the SEIU and Indivisible are a place for thoughtful dialogue. After a dozen or so of these "town halls" nationwide, it's pretty clear what the tactics are. Lawmakers have no duty to subject themselves to hostile crowds not interested in bipartisan dialogue.
It's not that they are ignoring their "constituents"....they are already aware of those viewpoints, considering that the scene and the playbook arguments have been repeated over and over again at each of these so called town hall meetings across the country. Moreover, those constituents with those viewpoints have been screaming them since November.

ptown_trojans_1;1838654 wrote:We all cool with the NYT, LA Times, and CNN not being allowed to attend the daily briefing/ meeting today?

Seems a little petty to me and a bad precedent.

Now that I think about it, didn't this happen toward the beginning of the Obama administration, but one of the rival networks interceded on Fox News' behalf?

O-Trap;1838665 wrote:Now that I think about it, didn't this happen toward the beginning of the Obama administration, but one of the rival networks interceded on Fox News' behalf?

Yep. That's why I keep laughing at liberals losing their shit over this. It was ok when Obama did it (not for the media, which DID step up recognizing it was a horrible precedent).

...because it's too convoluted and incestual if all of it was exposed, it's further argument that everything should simply be uncensored and unedited. No slant...nothing hidden...let the people decide.

Azubuike24;1838668 wrote:...let the people decide.

They did and they have. And, sadly, the people like slanted news that confirms and validates their beliefs, delivered in a tone and manner equal to the outrage/disgust they share.

Politics has become like sports, and the media has basically become your cheerleaders.

gut;1838671 wrote:They did and they have. And, sadly, the people like slanted news that confirms and validates their beliefs, delivered in a tone and manner equal to the outrage/disgust they share.

Politics has become like sports, and the media has basically become your cheerleaders.

Which is why I'm going to constantly fight for it to be reset and not driven by money and power. Just like almost every other industry.

gut;1838667 wrote:Yep. That's why I keep laughing at liberals losing their shit over this. It was ok when Obama did it (not for the media, which DID step up recognizing it was a horrible precedent).

So on one hand, you have to laugh at the Democrats for the outrage, but on the other hand, you have to be disappointed in Fox News' unwillingness to do what they know from experience ought to be done.

gut;1838671 wrote:They did and they have. And, sadly, the people like slanted news that confirms and validates their beliefs, delivered in a tone and manner equal to the outrage/disgust they share.

Politics has become like sports, and the media has basically become your cheerleaders.

Essentially, this. People want the He-Man/Skeletor dichotomy. They want a clear-cut good guy who fights for all that's good, and they want a villain who proudly bears the badge of evil.

Azubuike24;1838672 wrote:Which is why I'm going to constantly fight for it to be reset and not driven by money and power. Just like almost every other industry.

That's fantastic, but you're not going to accomplish that by justifying an absence of evidence. I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I just need something more than circumstantial events that are more simply explained another way.

I agree with you. I disagree with any censorship. At least if you claim to be "the mainstream."

Joe Schmoe who owns a blog can write whatever he wants. Nobody probably reads it and nobody probably cares, thus, the people vet the information automatically by deeming it irrelevant.

At the top, or even in the middle level, all news reports have some elements of smoke and mirrors and the people are the ones who suffer for it.

Azubuike24;1838677 wrote:I agree with you. I disagree with any censorship. At least if you claim to be "the mainstream."

Joe Schmoe who owns a blog can write whatever he wants. Nobody probably reads it and nobody probably cares, thus, the people vet the information automatically by deeming it irrelevant.

At the top, or even in the middle level, all news reports have some elements of smoke and mirrors and the people are the ones who suffer for it.

So, freedom of speech goes away if someone is "middle" or "at the top?" Well shit. Who gets to decide where those lines are?

No, not at all. I'm saying that when the news media became a for profit industry, it immediately will follow and filter down the bias of who is making the financial decisions. It's not just the media either.

Azubuike24;1838679 wrote:No, not at all. I'm saying that when the news media became a for profit industry, it immediately will follow and filter down the bias of who is making the financial decisions. It's not just the media either.

Well, whether it's for-profit or nonprofit really doesn't change whether or not money can be shuffled around into people's hands. Having spent some time marketing in the nonprofit arena, I can tell you that the biggest lie I ever heard was that nonprofits don't care about money.

So we can't make them public, because then, they'll report to the exact same entities on which they're supposed to report. That's obviously not an adequate means of establishing accountability.

Might there merely be a niche within the market for an organization with the intention of reporting news without bias? I would suggest that there could be, and a profitable one at that.

O-Trap;1838692 wrote: Might there merely be a niche within the market for an organization with the intention of reporting news without bias?

Nope. Not enough to make money, anyways.

When you have a President who singles out a single news organization, mocks them and dismisses them over and over, I guess it could be said that it is a natural progression that the next person takes it a step further. Much like how a snowball will gather size and speed if it is allowed to continue to roll downhill, unhindered. A perfect example of how selective outrage backfires.

I'm not a fan of this, but there obviously is millions of people who are. They will support Trump no matter what. Just like many people supported Obama... no matter what. And everybody who posts on this forum has been guilty of it at one time or another. Let's not pretend that we're any different.
And now it's a little too late to stop that snowball from rolling because the gloating has already begun. Being selective instead of objective will always lead to a bite in the ass, justified/right or not.

[video=youtube;1mBKVCNEW1o][/video]

ptown_trojans_1;1838654 wrote:We all cool with the NYT, LA Times, and CNN not being allowed to attend the daily briefing/ meeting today?

Seems a little petty to me and a bad precedent.

Very petty, but it's not a precedent...

Originally Posted by ptown_trojans_1 We all cool with the NYT, LA Times, and CNN not being allowed to attend the daily briefing/ meeting today?

Seems a little petty to me and a bad precedent.

Is the National Enquirer allowed in?....I kid, I kid.

HitsRus;1838718 wrote:Is the National Enquirer allowed in?....I kid, I kid.

Breitbart is, so that's about 1/2 degree of separation!

gut;1838698 wrote:Nope. Not enough to make money, anyways.

Or, at the very least, not enough to make more money than if one were to create one that leans in a given direction.

Which then goes on to suggest that it wouldn't really matter if one existed. Few people would actually watch it, anyway.

The problem is, the MSM never wants it to get a chance. The subtle censorship that 99% of people don't even see is crazy. At the same time, a private company should have the right to censor whatever they want, just call a spade a spade.

Twitter and Facebook, for instance, despise the extreme right-wing ideology. However, if I'm a poor right-winger, upstart news reporter, I need to be more innovative than to use just those mediums and not complain when they don't like my content. However, the denial that this goes on (and it's not just right-wing) leads people to believe nothing has to change and gives the "niche" you speak of, no chance to exist.

Azubuike24;1838739 wrote:The problem is, the MSM never wants it to get a chance. The subtle censorship that 99% of people don't even see is crazy. At the same time, a private company should have the right to censor whatever they want, just call a spade a spade.

Twitter and Facebook, for instance, despise the extreme right-wing ideology. However, if I'm a poor right-winger, upstart news reporter, I need to be more innovative than to use just those mediums and not complain when they don't like my content. However, the denial that this goes on (and it's not just right-wing) leads people to believe nothing has to change and gives the "niche" you speak of, no chance to exist.

To the contrary, if there is, in fact, a market for it, someone will indeed build it. Any denial that slant exists won't stop that.

And again, the outlets currently in existence are hardly working together, so it's not exactly a united front.

Very true, and it's why those who don't like it should quit complaining they are censored on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc...and go elsewhere.

Azubuike24;1838743 wrote:Very true, and it's why those who don't like it should quit complaining they are censored on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc...and go elsewhere.

Oh, I don't mind complaining. The freedom of association that those private companies exercise is fine, but so is the free speech to complain about it, but it gets annoying when those who complain start venturing into the "there should be a law" territory.

O-Trap;1838733 wrote: Which then goes on to suggest that it wouldn't really matter if one existed. Few people would actually watch it, anyway.

That's right. And it would get attacked by both the right and the left who saw it as a threat to their profits (and agenda they push).

Although, to be fair, the straight news is generally considered pretty decent. There is an agenda on what they choose to cover, and they make mistakes trying to keep-up with social media covering breaking news, but it's generally pretty good.

The problem is the opinion shows dominate prime time, and that seems to be the only source of news for people (even worse are those who get their news from Bill Maher, The Daily Show, etc...). But the straight news also isn't very in depth, another reflection of the 30-second attention span of viewers.