If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Thanks to the likes of Fox News, we no longer have a fake sense of consensus in views. Or it could just be that our views are constantly evolving. Whichever you want to believe   (politico.com) divider line 110
    More: Interesting, Fox News, Tet Offensive, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Viet Cong, Philip Roth, President Johnson, Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw  
•       •       •

896 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:41 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-20 09:08:05 AM
I miss Uncle Walt. His book is awesome.

Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion. Uncle Walt had national credibility because he reported the news, only the news, in a balanced and credible way.

Today we have deliberate polarization in attempts to magnetize viewer demographics and to acheive political ends in order to acheive financial ends. "News" is infotainment, just enough substance to carry the narritive of the day.

At some level, most of us seem to want to be in a place of growing unity. We are sick as shiat of this Red - Blue crap. I don't want to feel outrage every day. I want us to remember we are a mix of peoples with very different views, but the minority views are just that and don't deserve amplified focus because we have minutes to fill on air.

/soapbox
 
2014-02-20 09:37:30 AM
The era of the Great White Father as a unifying American media figure is over.
If we didn't know that already, the news that Tom Brokaw is being treated for cancer is a poignant reminder that those days are long gone



That is one f*cked up way to preface a point.
 
2014-02-20 10:01:59 AM

Rain-Monkey: Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion.


Well, a convincing fake consensus would do that, or even a not-so-convincing fake consensus without any opposing viewpoints being aired.

We should celebrate the diversity we have now, because no one ideology or viewpoint has a 100% lock on the truth.  *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now, not back when it was filtered long before you saw it, with little or no alternative viewpoints on the events of the day being aired.
 
2014-02-20 10:02:40 AM
I read that as "the lies of Fox News". Same outcome, I guess.
 
2014-02-20 10:20:05 AM

dittybopper: Rain-Monkey: Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion.

Well, a convincing fake consensus would do that, or even a not-so-convincing fake consensus without any opposing viewpoints being aired.

We should celebrate the diversity we have now, because no one ideology or viewpoint has a 100% lock on the truth.  *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now, not back when it was filtered long before you saw it, with little or no alternative viewpoints on the events of the day being aired.


"Viewpoints" on news shouldn't be televised as news.  Back when it was "filtered" we had the news, then we had talk shows about the news. Facts are facts.  Bill O'Reilly's interpretation of those facts has no bearing on them, and shouldn't be projected in such a way.  There aren't two sides to everything, and opinion is something that should rest on the viewers' shoulders.  They've taken your opinion away, fabricated a dichotomy, and framed the situation in a way that you must pick one of the two. Do you see the ethical problem here?
 
2014-02-20 10:22:10 AM

dittybopper: Rain-Monkey: Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion.

Well, a convincing fake consensus would do that, or even a not-so-convincing fake consensus without any opposing viewpoints being aired.

We should celebrate the diversity we have now, because no one ideology or viewpoint has a 100% lock on the truth.  *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now, not back when it was filtered long before you saw it, with little or no alternative viewpoints on the events of the day being aired.


I would agree with you that this is the golden age of journalism if they actually practiced journalism and not just pass op-eds off as "fact finding"

Investigative journalism meant something and was long and costly but the end-product was infinitely worth it. What we have now is a bunch of dittoheads pushing their own political agendas instead of actually trying to report on news. You want actual news, you have to look at BBC or Al-Jeezra America. In the US, only NPR goes out of their way to actually do real news.
 
2014-02-20 10:26:34 AM
Much in the same way that a debate between the Chair of Immunology at Johns Hopkins and ConcernedMommy2KheylytynandJheydyn is a debate, the difference between real news coverage and "Some are saying Obama ordered the Benghazi attacks personally to cover up his torrid underage affair with the Al Qaeda boss assigned to Libya back when the two met in art class at their atheist madrassa" is easy to see for the non-potato.
 
2014-02-20 10:33:39 AM

thamike: dittybopper: Rain-Monkey: Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion.

Well, a convincing fake consensus would do that, or even a not-so-convincing fake consensus without any opposing viewpoints being aired.

We should celebrate the diversity we have now, because no one ideology or viewpoint has a 100% lock on the truth.  *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now, not back when it was filtered long before you saw it, with little or no alternative viewpoints on the events of the day being aired.

"Viewpoints" on news shouldn't be televised as news.  Back when it was "filtered" we had the news, then we had talk shows about the news. Facts are facts.  Bill O'Reilly's interpretation of those facts has no bearing on them, and shouldn't be projected in such a way.  There aren't two sides to everything, and opinion is something that should rest on the viewers' shoulders.  They've taken your opinion away, fabricated a dichotomy, and framed the situation in a way that you must pick one of the two. Do you see the ethical problem here?


Well, I don't think Bill O'Reilly would be confused for a "news show", he's pretty much the very definition of a talk show about the news, not actual news reporting.

And yes, facts are facts, except when they aren't.  We've all seen reporting about things or events that we have in-depth knowledge of that were fundamentally *WRONG*.  Not even wrong as in "he said, she said" interpretations, but fundamental laws of physics type of wrong, yet we assume that the other things we hear or read are true.  Michael Crichton commented on the phenomenon, dubbing it "Gell-Mann Amnesia":

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.


*THAT* is the problem with all news reporting:  Structurally, it's going to get a number of things wrong.  Even the most careful reporter is going to make mistakes because they aren't historians writing 50 years after the fact, they have deadlines to make and editors to placate.  And yes, sometimes they have an inherent bias.  For example, whatever respectability the national news anchor as an institution may have had at one point was squandered by Dan Rather and Memogate.   It was clear that the only reason Rather got caught is that there was a way for people to test what was said and more importantly to communicate the results of that test in rapid fashion to a very wide audience.

Had "Memogate" happened in the 1960's through the 1980's, back when there wasn't the ability of a widely diverse population to challenge the "facts" as presented, how long would it have been before the truth came out that it was a forgery?  Probably *AFTER* the election, when no one would really give a shiat.
 
2014-02-20 10:41:24 AM
People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.
 
2014-02-20 10:44:35 AM

somedude210: I would agree with you that this is the golden age of journalism if they actually practiced journalism and not just pass op-eds off as "fact finding"


Are all these libs whining about journalism bias actively attempting to suppress free speech or are they just trampling our freedoms out of ignorance? We report, you decide.
 
2014-02-20 10:47:57 AM

dittybopper: Well, I don't think Bill O'Reilly would be confused for a "news show", he's pretty much the very definition of a talk show about the news, not actual news reporting.


Wow, somebody should tell the people at Fox News:

For more than 10 consecutive years, "The O'Reilly Factor" has been the highest-rated cable news show on television.
 
2014-02-20 10:49:07 AM
You mean back in the good old days when you had reporting vs infotainment propaganda today?
 
2014-02-20 10:49:32 AM

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


...reporting from Derpistan, SlothB77, our John Birch Society correspondent.
 
2014-02-20 10:49:43 AM

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


This is what mouth breathers actually believe.
 
2014-02-20 10:52:02 AM

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


I must admit, I'm always impressed by your ability to type with all those GOP cocks in your mouth.  Do you wait between loads to do some editing, or are you just a good touch typist?
 
2014-02-20 10:52:07 AM

dittybopper: Well, I don't think Bill O'Reilly would be confused for a "news show", he's pretty much the very definition of a talk show about the news, not actual news reporting.


Not on O'Reilly no, but what the "news" portions of Fox News do is present the same exact thing, but frame it as news. O'Reilly will say something like:
"I think Obama may actually be a Socialist-Muslim"
That's easy to see as opinion, but then on the "news" shows you will see something like:
"Some people are now questioning whether Obama is really a Christian capitalist"

That's presenting an opinion as News. It's the same exact thing that O'Reilyl is speculating about, but trying to frame it so it looks like news. It's pushing a definite angle. There's no journalism there, there's no fact finding and presenting evidence. It's speculation, plain and simple.
 
2014-02-20 10:52:09 AM

dittybopper: *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now


Golden shower, more like.
 
2014-02-20 10:52:35 AM
Article is bunk. There never EVER was a "consensus" on the news. There was just "NEWS". You know, facts. Sober reporting. It was boring, but most importantly it was informative. Sure, there were only 3 networks doing the news, but that doesn't mean there was a liberal bias, despite what some would have you believe.

Then Fox News came along and decided to hearken back to the days of yellow journalism and sensationalize conservative opinion on television. That, and the internet, got us to where we are today.
 
2014-02-20 10:53:44 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Much in the same way that a debate between the Chair of Immunology at Johns Hopkins and ConcernedMommy2KheylytynandJheydyn is a debate, the difference between real news coverage and "Some are saying Obama ordered the Benghazi attacks personally to cover up his torrid underage affair with the Al Qaeda boss assigned to Libya back when the two met in art class at their atheist madrassa" is easy to see for the non-potato.


Recently, Bill Nye debated climate change with representative Blackburn on global warming.

She just kept repeating "There is no consensus!  There is no consensus!" then quoted that MIT prof who denies climate change.

So, yeah, one or two dissenters mean there's no consensus.  I guess that's true in derperville.

However, a person who believes that GW is a hoax, because, they just don't trust those science-y types will look at that, and take the reps word at face value.

As long as they can keep a dialogue that there's no consensus, they will keep feeding the morons.

Really, I hate Americans at some times.
 
2014-02-20 10:56:24 AM

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


Does waking up every morning believing the whole world is a liberal conspiracy against you ever get tiring?
 
2014-02-20 10:57:57 AM

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


Only where liberal means "fact-based"

//Destroy all 24 hours news networks, but fox most of all.
 
2014-02-20 10:58:26 AM
My views are intelligently designed.
 
2014-02-20 10:59:09 AM
No not Fox "News" the internet is why we are starting to wake up.
 
2014-02-20 10:59:40 AM

neversubmit: No not Fox "News" the internet is why we are starting to wake up.


Crazy person detected.
 
2014-02-20 11:00:42 AM
In other words "Our viewpoints seemed more homogenous when we only had 3 people broadcasting what they believed they were".

Modern media and instant communication has changed that.
 
2014-02-20 11:01:51 AM

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.



Just a second, I'm almost finished masturbating to your post.
 
2014-02-20 11:02:39 AM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: must admit, I'm always impressed by your ability to type with all those GOP cocks in your mouth. Do you wait between loads to do some editing, or are you just a good touch typist?


Fark Libs are so bad at taking any criticism.

"You have to understand that I'm coming to these things as a member of the most pessimistic and ironic generation that has ever roamed the earth. When I hear millennials getting hurt by "cyber bullying", or it being a gateway to suicide, it's difficult for me to process. A little less so for my boyfriend, who happens to be a millennial of that age, but even he somewhat agrees with the sensitivity of Generation Wuss. It's very difficult for them to take criticism, and because of that a lot of the content produced is kind of shiatty. And when someone is criticised for their content, they seem to collapse, or the person criticising them is called a hater, a contrarian, a troll," Bret Easton Ellis.

If you say anything that isn't straight fark lib echo chamber, you must be a troll.  Until 1997 or so, there was no Fox News.  There was no conservative alternative to liberal spin.  The news has always been spun by the people who deliver it.  There is spin inherent in the prioritization and emphasis given to the stories you report and the stories you choose not to report.
 
2014-02-20 11:04:04 AM

Kuta: Article is bunk. There never EVER was a "consensus" on the news. There was just "NEWS". You know, facts. Sober reporting. It was boring, but most importantly it was informative. Sure, there were only 3 networks doing the news, but that doesn't mean there was a liberal bias, despite what some would have you believe.

Then Fox News came along and decided to hearken back to the days of yellow journalism and sensationalize conservative opinion on television. That, and the internet, got us to where we are today.


The whole "liberal bias" comes back from the days when Agnew tried to work the refs when reports of his corruption started to come to light. It's been a time honored tradition with Republicans ever since because enough rubes believe it.
 
2014-02-20 11:05:54 AM

ikanreed: neversubmit: No not Fox "News" the internet is why we are starting to wake up.

Crazy person detected.


Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.
 
2014-02-20 11:06:33 AM

SlothB77: Until 1997 or so, there was no Fox News obvious yellow journalism. There was no conservative alternative to liberal spin.

 
2014-02-20 11:06:47 AM

SlothB77: If you say anything that isn't straight fark lib echo chamber, you must be a troll.


Well, there's also the slavering retard incapable of coherent thought that would genuinely buy into modern American conservatism.  We're giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
 
2014-02-20 11:06:58 AM

BunkoSquad: dittybopper: Well, I don't think Bill O'Reilly would be confused for a "news show", he's pretty much the very definition of a talk show about the news, not actual news reporting.

Wow, somebody should tell the people at Fox News:

For more than 10 consecutive years, "The O'Reilly Factor" has been the highest-rated cable news show on television.


Surely they mean that The O'Reilly Factor is the highest-rated show on "cable news".  But that's a perfect example of how you can frame the truth in such a way that it is no longer true.

That's why partisan hacks should not be reporting news, and why neutral journalists need to pay careful attention to the way they word the facts they report.

And while we're at it, candy should provide 100% of our nutritional needs and clean our teeth while we chew.
 
2014-02-20 11:09:19 AM
Fox News gives the same bull-horn on a pulpit to the crazies that they do to anyone with a legitimate point or actual facts to share.  That means that anytime someone goes on TV to tell you something important you should know, you no longer have any confidence that it might be real.  It could just be another Fox News crazy.

Good job destroying the useful role of a news channel.
 
2014-02-20 11:09:36 AM

neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.


Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".
 
2014-02-20 11:10:31 AM

SlothB77: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: must admit, I'm always impressed by your ability to type with all those GOP cocks in your mouth. Do you wait between loads to do some editing, or are you just a good touch typist?

Fark Libs are so bad at taking any criticism.

"You have to understand that I'm coming to these things as a member of the most pessimistic and ironic generation that has ever roamed the earth. When I hear millennials getting hurt by "cyber bullying", or it being a gateway to suicide, it's difficult for me to process. A little less so for my boyfriend, who happens to be a millennial of that age, but even he somewhat agrees with the sensitivity of Generation Wuss. It's very difficult for them to take criticism, and because of that a lot of the content produced is kind of shiatty. And when someone is criticised for their content, they seem to collapse, or the person criticising them is called a hater, a contrarian, a troll," Bret Easton Ellis.

If you say anything that isn't straight fark lib echo chamber, you must be a troll.  Until 1997 or so, there was no Fox News.  There was no conservative alternative to liberal spin.  The news has always been spun by the people who deliver it.  There is spin inherent in the prioritization and emphasis given to the stories you report and the stories you choose not to report.



progressivebumperstickers.com
 
2014-02-20 11:10:36 AM

SlothB77: People, especially on Fark, forget that Fox News only started in 1997 or 1998 - about then - and only in a few markets.  Before that, all we had was far-liberal slanted coverage with no alternative to call them out on all their bullshiat.  Libs had free reign for decades.  And as is obvious by the viewership that moved to Fox News, it *was* a fake consensus.


Even you can't be that stupid. That young, maybe, but outside of actual leftist rags like the Nation, MoJo, and PWW, there's no such thing as a liberal media.

What you're thinking of is a normal news media that wouldn't join in on your Clinton hate.
 
2014-02-20 11:11:00 AM

ikanreed: neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.

Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".


4.bp.blogspot.com

Be a good biatch and suck it! LOL
 
2014-02-20 11:12:58 AM

SlothB77: Until 1997 or so, there was no Fox News. There was no conservative alternative to liberal spin. The news has always been spun by the people who deliver it. There is spin inherent in the prioritization and emphasis given to the stories you report and the stories you choose not to report.


Which is why there was no conservative movement in this country until 1999. No JBS, no WF Buckley, no Rockefeller, no Reagan (1960s "spokesman" or 1980s "president" version), no opposition to Medicare, no opposition to Social Security, full-throated support for Vietnam (until that rat bastard Cronkite had to get liberal all over the place), no Nixon, no savaging of Dukakis in '88 (HAHAHA what a dork!), Watergate was just a fraternity prank gone wrong and Dan Ellburg is just a whiny pussy (thanks for blowing that out of proportion, libs), no Contract for America (in 1994, several years before Fox News), no Lewinskyghazi (spun up in 1996, right about when Fox News was), and the S&L scandal was swept under the rug because it was 5 Democrats and McCain.

Oh, but some guy named Bret Easton Ellis says millenials are soft-skinned liberal crybabies. I guess that means I've been living a lie.

// I'm gonna go buy some Brooks Brothers and get a job as an accountant
// serious question - are you a member of the John Birch Society?
 
2014-02-20 11:13:40 AM

SlothB77: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: must admit, I'm always impressed by your ability to type with all those GOP cocks in your mouth. Do you wait between loads to do some editing, or are you just a good touch typist?

Fark Libs are so bad at taking any criticism.

"You have to understand that I'm coming to these things as a member of the most pessimistic and ironic generation that has ever roamed the earth. When I hear millennials getting hurt by "cyber bullying", or it being a gateway to suicide, it's difficult for me to process. A little less so for my boyfriend, who happens to be a millennial of that age, but even he somewhat agrees with the sensitivity of Generation Wuss. It's very difficult for them to take criticism, and because of that a lot of the content produced is kind of shiatty. And when someone is criticised for their content, they seem to collapse, or the person criticising them is called a hater, a contrarian, a troll," Bret Easton Ellis.

If you say anything that isn't straight fark lib echo chamber, you must be a troll.  Until 1997 or so, there was no Fox News.  There was no conservative alternative to liberal spin.  The news has always been spun by the people who deliver it.  There is spin inherent in the prioritization and emphasis given to the stories you report and the stories you choose not to report.


Oh, I wasn't calling you a troll.  It's just obvious that taking sides is far more important to you than facts.  You see, when you say "liberal spin" you're actually referring to what's known as "observable reality."  Oh, and suggesting that Fox News somehow is the progenitor of conservative yellow journalism is pretty damn funny, so thanks for the laugh.
 
2014-02-20 11:15:52 AM

neversubmit: ikanreed: neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.

Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".



Be a good biatch and suck it! LOL


You realize his quote applies to virtually everything on the Internet right?
 
2014-02-20 11:17:07 AM

neversubmit: ikanreed: neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.

Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x850]

Be a good biatch and suck it! LOL


Yeah, thanks, I already knew you didn't have a defense for your position, and were fundamentally acting on an appeal to authority.  You didn't need to remind me.

//The best thing about morons is that they're always so sure how smart they are.
 
2014-02-20 11:18:00 AM
Att Universe just added BBC World News and I couldn't be happier.

Its nice to be able to watch objective intelligent news again.
 
2014-02-20 11:19:00 AM

Mrtraveler01: Its nice to be able to watch objective intelligent news again.


Except certain pedophiles.
 
2014-02-20 11:20:12 AM

SlothB77: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: must admit, I'm always impressed by your ability to type with all those GOP cocks in your mouth. Do you wait between loads to do some editing, or are you just a good touch typist?

Fark Libs are so bad at taking any criticism.

"You have to understand that I'm coming to these things as a member of the most pessimistic and ironic generation that has ever roamed the earth. When I hear millennials getting hurt by "cyber bullying", or it being a gateway to suicide, it's difficult for me to process. A little less so for my boyfriend, who happens to be a millennial of that age, but even he somewhat agrees with the sensitivity of Generation Wuss. It's very difficult for them to take criticism, and because of that a lot of the content produced is kind of shiatty. And when someone is criticised for their content, they seem to collapse, or the person criticising them is called a hater, a contrarian, a troll," Bret Easton Ellis.

If you say anything that isn't straight fark lib echo chamber, you must be a troll.  Until 1997 or so, there was no Fox News.  There was no conservative alternative to liberal spin.  The news has always been spun by the people who deliver it.  There is spin inherent in the prioritization and emphasis given to the stories you report and the stories you choose not to report.



Digging a little into your comments, what I find there is a profound cynicism. I see a faith that claims that there is no such thing as a verifiable fact, no such thing as a historical event, nothing in the universe that could possibly be undeniably true for everyone. Not in history, not in philosophy or religion or science or anywhere... so why not just give up and consume whatever infotainment we find that makes us feel good, whatever doesn't challenge any of our treasured myths and preconceived notions?

Call me old-fashioned, but I think there's a thing called 'reality'.
 
2014-02-20 11:20:55 AM
Any chance to trot this back out...

i280.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-20 11:21:11 AM

thamike: dittybopper: Rain-Monkey: Not sure if the consensus was fake, it did seem to represent the majority opinion.

Well, a convincing fake consensus would do that, or even a not-so-convincing fake consensus without any opposing viewpoints being aired.

We should celebrate the diversity we have now, because no one ideology or viewpoint has a 100% lock on the truth.  *THIS* is the Golden Age of news reporting now, not back when it was filtered long before you saw it, with little or no alternative viewpoints on the events of the day being aired.

"Viewpoints" on news shouldn't be televised as news.  Back when it was "filtered" we had the news, then we had talk shows about the news. Facts are facts.  Bill O'Reilly's interpretation of those facts has no bearing on them, and shouldn't be projected in such a way.  There aren't two sides to everything, and opinion is something that should rest on the viewers' shoulders.  They've taken your opinion away, fabricated a dichotomy, and framed the situation in a way that you must pick one of the two. Do you see the ethical problem here?


THIS

I actually lost a friend over the definition of the word Bias.
They insisted that Fox News was unbiased and all other news was Biased.
I tried to explain that ALL NEWS is BIASED. Some more than others.

No point in ever talking to a box of rocks.
 
2014-02-20 11:21:42 AM

ikanreed: Mrtraveler01: Its nice to be able to watch objective intelligent news again.

Except certain pedophiles.


Touche.

I'll still take them over the garbage that passes for "news" in this country.
 
2014-02-20 11:21:44 AM

ikanreed: neversubmit: ikanreed: neversubmit: Fine I'll be crazy you can stay a sucker.

Yeah, you're just crazy.  The fact that you think of yourself as magically more aware of shiat than others just makes you crazy.   Like there isn't a crazy-sucker dichotomy, there's just a crazy flag.

There's always been a lot going on in the world, not all of it just and right, and there isn't some elaborate conspiracy to "wake up to".

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x850]

Be a good biatch and suck it! LOL

Yeah, thanks, I already knew you didn't have a defense for your position, and were fundamentally acting on an appeal to authority.  You didn't need to remind me.

//The best thing about morons is that they're always so sure how smart they are.


I have never understood why people use alts when they are still the same asshole. Why Chance, do you do it?
 
2014-02-20 11:23:58 AM
"Sarah Palin demonstrated the depths-or the shallows-of these kneejerk tribal affinities when she admitted that, despite supporting him, she had not read the interview in which the Duck Dynasty cable star Phil Robertson spoke nostalgically about how happy African Americans were in the days of the apartheid South and, while professing his "love" for gay people, compared their behavior to swindling, terrorism and bestiality. Why bother to read the words on the page when you've already assembled your talking points? Robertson was "one of us," and that, for Palin, was all that mattered."


Y'know, this explains why certain Texan-Americans white-knight people like James O'Keefe on internet forums.
 
2014-02-20 11:24:03 AM
It's funny, but a lot of people seem to remember the 1960s and early 1970s very differently than I do. I remember Goldwater conservatives complaining that Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley and the rest were liberal shills, particularly when Cronkite started weeping when he reported the Kennedy assassination or when a brash war correspondent named Dan Rather started filing reports from Vietnam which contradicted the government story. I also remember critics on the left complaining about corporate ownership of the news (you may recall that Huntley-Brinkley report was originally sponsored exclusively by Texaco), and the fact that aside from Rather and a few others, no one seemed interested in showing what was really  happening in Southeast Asia. I remember a guy named Hunter Thompson coming along and nearly getting himself killed covering the murder of reporter Ruben Salazar by the LAPD, only to have his objectivity questioned for even mentioning the story. As Thompson said at the time, there is no such thing as objective journalism, there never has been, and the myth of its existence is toxic.

But maybe that's just me. My memory isn't what it used to be.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report