I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
Still can't admit that your party is the problem can you? The first step to getting better and learning from this awful experience is admitting the problem. Good luck with that and God help us.
I have admitted plenty where and when it has mattered. I'm not obligated to tell you or anybody else on this forum every single thought I've ever had -- which is why I have 800 posts over 13 years. I share most of my thoughts where they actually make a difference, with people who are in a position to do something about it.
The party will change. I've said that before. I'm saying it now again. It will change, but not in the snap of a finger like you want it (like a three year old wants things now or throws a fit). Processes are in motion for change to happen. You just don't see it because you see everything through your narrow, jaded viewpoint and have zero involvement with the party on the ground.
My saying that voters got it wrong does not negate my belief that the party will change. Those two ideas are distinct concepts that do not cancel each other out. Critical thinkers can understand that complexity.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
Still can't admit that your party is the problem can you? The first step to getting better and learning from this awful experience is admitting the problem. Good luck with that and God help us.
My saying that voters got it wrong does not negate my belief that the party will change. Those two ideas are distinct concepts that do not cancel each other out. Critical thinkers can understand that complexity.
Critical thinkers do not put a candidate like Hillary up.
Has anyone seen Hillary? Heard from her? Has she had a post election press conference? How about the winner, the Don? Where's he at? Will he hold a press conference? I'd like someone to ask him if any of his business enterprises received financing from Russia, Russia, Russia and if so, how much and what are the terms of re-payment. Surely being as smart as he claims to be, he can answer the question, question, question. Will he answer the question if its tweeted to him? Someone on here have a twitter account and can ask for me? I don't do Twitter or Facetard. I have a few other questions I'd like to know the answers to as well. But only the Don can answer them.
I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
I do give a shit about how and why she lost because it is a mistake we can't afford to repeat. There are lessons to be learned while we push back against Trump. We can either learn them or ignore them.
ALL of the reasons she lost were well known BEFORE she lost. We don't need to spend more weeks, months, and years reviewing why people didn't like Hillary Clinton enough to vote for her. She's been dealt this crap her entire political life, people criticizing and sabotaging her work and character because of whatever perceived threat she poses. This time it just happened to be the Russians. So the fuck what.
I get it that you're angry. I'm angry. But I'm not going to continue to tear down the candidate and party who lost. That's exactly how she lost -- internal strife and petty picking apart, all instigated by the assholes who are about to rob America blind of every last resource we've got left. Their strategy was divide and conquer, and it worked. Now they are about to take it all while liberals sit around and wonder how it happened. Wake up. It's obvious how it happened. I'm pretty sure we figured out in 2000 how it happened. And it fucking happened again, even though Bernie Sanders himself warned his bros that we can't let it.
Dems don't -and won't - learn a thing from losing by never admitting you are the big part of why HRC lost. How many people does it take to say it til Dems actually hear it? And then work towards overhauling and making the damaged party better?
Have you even been to a single party meeting to even know what the hell people say or think about overhauling it? Let me guess. Umm . . . No. Based on the proliferation of your activity on here, I'm pretty sure you don't do anything to affect change at any political party meeting, Dem, Green, Socialist, whatever the hell you are. I'm pretty sure the leaders of the Democratic party aren't reading your thousands of posts on here about all their weaknesses. I mean, so weak of them to campaign on raising the minimum wage, protecting right to choose, free college education, affordable child care, investment in clean energy.
Here's an idea. Maybe it's the VOTERS' fault we have Trump as our new president. If people looked at those two choices and thought Trump was better, THEY deserve every last bit of the misery they are about to experience.
Still can't admit that your party is the problem can you? The first step to getting better and learning from this awful experience is admitting the problem. Good luck with that and God help us.
My saying that voters got it wrong does not negate my belief that the party will change. Those two ideas are distinct concepts that do not cancel each other out. Critical thinkers can understand that complexity.
Critical thinkers do not put a candidate like Hillary up.
I personally did not put Hillary up. I voted for Sanders in the primary. I've also said that maybe 20 times on this forum.
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
I say keep posting it. Free speech for all!!
He never answered my conversation degradation questions so I invoked the Veddie storyteller response.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
Mainstream news is minimal partisan bias?? If anyone believes that garbage they will believe anything.
If you don't want bias, either turn on international news or just simply kill your TV. Good God.
When something is mainstream, then people just call it what it is. My old company used to stock these generic Post-It notes called Stickie Pads. They sucked. Now I work at a company that uses actual 3M Brand Post-It notes. They are great. I don't walk around all day calling them mainstream post-it notes though. That would be stupid. They are just fucking post-it notes. Only an moron, or possibly a hipster, would refer to them as mainstream.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Major FACE PALM.
Mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations. I'll say it again. Mainstream media is privately owned by only six corporations. And just because they win Pulitzer Prize does not mean they're not biased, nor accurate!
Seriously, do your own research and find out the truth. These media stations that you cite as reputable, prize winners, non-biased? You are being fooled into thinking such a thing. Wake up. This is why we have so many people believing what they hear on the news.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
Mainstream news is minimal partisan bias?? If anyone believes that garbage they will believe anything.
If you don't want bias, either turn on international news or just simply kill your TV. Good God.
I hear the international news suggestion often, and I do actually read international news as well. But my question is, why do you think international news is immune from bias? It certainly can provide a different way of viewing something, and maybe even cover stories that aren't being covered in US mainstream news, but news is created from people who work for companies. People naturally have bias, and companies have agendas, whether domestic or international. And the chart above in the reputable and analytical to complex area, including the gray circle, do contain international sources - BBC, The Economist & The Guardian, all of which I enjoy reading.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Major FACE PALM.
Mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations. I'll say it again. Mainstream media is privately owned by only six corporations. And just because they win Pulitzer Prize does not mean they're not biased, nor accurate!
Seriously, do your own research and find out the truth. These media stations that you cite as reputable, prize winners, non-biased? You are being fooled into thinking such a thing. Wake up. This is why we have so many people believing what they hear on the news.
Can you provide some examples of where you get your reliable news from?
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.
6 privately owned corps own ALL of that media you believe.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
I don't really have the time to point out everything ... i'll just say that these media outlets continue to support the neo-liberal movement that despite it's outward appearance - ultimately serves the corporate agenda ...
where is the independent reporting on syria? ... these outlets often support state-sponsored terrorists because it suits its agenda ... why is it that americans support the "rebels" in syria? ... why is it that all the reporting makes Assad the bad guy? ... a sovereign country that's last election saw over a 70% turnout that resulted in over 70% voting for this president ... why do americans think its ok to fund rebel groups that are in cahoots with ISIS? ... why do these media outlets perpetuate the notion that this is some kind of civil war when it is a terrorist uprising supported by the US and Saudi Arabia?
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything? ... they are other newspapers handing out awards to each other ...
the only media outlet i'm not sure of is npr
NPR is biased toward establishment. Even PBS, who used to be public (and awesome) is now owned by corporations due to lack of funding at one point years ago.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.
6 privately owned corps own ALL of that media you believe.
Tell me which of the 6 own Thomson Reuters, NPR, BBC & AP again?
What is the appropriate amount of companies to ensure appropriate competition? Look at nearly any industry and a handful of dominant companies likely make up 90%.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
Mainstream news is minimal partisan bias?? If anyone believes that garbage they will believe anything.
If you don't want bias, either turn on international news or just simply kill your TV. Good God.
When something is mainstream, then people just call it what it is. My old company used to stock these generic Post-It notes called Stickie Pads. They sucked. Now I work at a company that uses actual 3M Brand Post-It notes. They are great. I don't walk around all day calling them mainstream post-it notes though. That would be stupid. They are just fucking post-it notes. Only an moron, or possibly a hipster, would refer to them as mainstream.
With due respect, you know nothing about the media.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
Mainstream news is minimal partisan bias?? If anyone believes that garbage they will believe anything.
If you don't want bias, either turn on international news or just simply kill your TV. Good God.
When something is mainstream, then people just call it what it is. My old company used to stock these generic Post-It notes called Stickie Pads. They sucked. Now I work at a company that uses actual 3M Brand Post-It notes. They are great. I don't walk around all day calling them mainstream post-it notes though. That would be stupid. They are just fucking post-it notes. Only an moron, or possibly a hipster, would refer to them as mainstream.
With due respect, you know nothing about the media.
With due respect, I'm not sure you understand how to use the phrase "With due respect".
But, please, enlighten me. What don't I know about the media.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
Mainstream news is minimal partisan bias?? If anyone believes that garbage they will believe anything.
If you don't want bias, either turn on international news or just simply kill your TV. Good God.
I hear the international news suggestion often, and I do actually read international news as well. But my question is, why do you think international news is immune from bias? It certainly can provide a different way of viewing something, and maybe even cover stories that aren't being covered in US mainstream news, but news is created from people who work for companies. People naturally have bias, and companies have agendas, whether domestic or international. And the chart above in the reputable and analytical to complex area, including the gray circle, do contain international sources - BBC, The Economist & The Guardian, all of which I enjoy reading.
That's true, they are not immune to bias. But you watch international news and you hear news stories about our country that won't get aired here. Here, they couldn't show caskets coming home from the war. We couldn't see any real news from wars that we've been fighting in. I like Aljazeera and BBC, though I'm sure BBC is biased to a point. But they don't bias to a political party or an ideology. They have no reason to. We really do live in a bubble over here in the US. International stations are more globalized in their news generally.
^^^ I read Aljazeera fairly often along w/ other sites. I just can't put my finger on why it feels like I shouldn't be. They cover a lot of things but it feels like I am doing something wrong by getting info from them. Does this make sense to anyone?
^^^ I read Aljazeera fairly often along w/ other sites. I just can't put my finger on why it feels like I shouldn't be. They cover a lot of things but it feels like I am doing something wrong by getting info from them. Does this make sense to anyone?
Do you feel a sense of obligation to American news? You shouldn't, no one should if they're seeking factual news.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.
6 privately owned corps own ALL of that media you believe.
Tell me which of the 6 own Thomson Reuters, NPR, BBC & AP again?
What is the appropriate amount of companies to ensure appropriate competition? Look at nearly any industry and a handful of dominant companies likely make up 90%.
Reuters was formally owned by the Rothschild family, now owned by the Tompson Reuters Corporation. Reuters owns AP, and they supply the 6 corps that own the rest mainstream media. All of it privately owned.
And here’s the breakdown for NPR itself, for FY 2005-2009. NPR is funded in large part by the fees that the member stations pay it for the right to play NPR programs (like Morning Edition, All Things Considered, etc.) and by corporate sponsorships. NPR actually does not receive any government funding for its operations costs.
The media used to be a public service. (think Walter Cronkite). The minute it became privately owned by corporations is when they started controlling the content and that was whatever they wanted to supply.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.
6 privately owned corps own ALL of that media you believe.
Tell me which of the 6 own Thomson Reuters, NPR, BBC & AP again?
What is the appropriate amount of companies to ensure appropriate competition? Look at nearly any industry and a handful of dominant companies likely make up 90%.
Reuters was formally owned by the Rothschild family, now owned by the Tompson Reuters Corporation. Reuters owns AP, and they supply the 6 corps that own the rest mainstream media. All of it privately owned.
And here’s the breakdown for NPR itself, for FY 2005-2009. NPR is funded in large part by the fees that the member stations pay it for the right to play NPR programs (like Morning Edition, All Things Considered, etc.) and by corporate sponsorships. NPR actually does not receive any government funding for its operations costs.
The media used to be a public service. (think Walter Cronkite). The minute it became privately owned by corporations is when they started controlling the content and that was whatever they wanted to supply. Again, not anything I'm not unaware of. College of Media at University Illinois is widely regarded as one of the world's top institutions for media education in various rankings. QS World University Rankings ranked its Media Studies program seventh in the world. My Libby-Lib-Lib-Liberal Arts education provided me the good fortune of attending many of these professors classes.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.
6 privately owned corps own ALL of that media you believe.
Tell me which of the 6 own Thomson Reuters, NPR, BBC & AP again?
What is the appropriate amount of companies to ensure appropriate competition? Look at nearly any industry and a handful of dominant companies likely make up 90%.
Reuters was formally owned by the Rothschild family, now owned by the Tompson Reuters Corporation. Reuters owns AP, and they supply the 6 corps that own the rest mainstream media. All of it privately owned.
And here’s the breakdown for NPR itself, for FY 2005-2009. NPR is funded in large part by the fees that the member stations pay it for the right to play NPR programs (like Morning Edition, All Things Considered, etc.) and by corporate sponsorships. NPR actually does not receive any government funding for its operations costs.
The media used to be a public service. (think Walter Cronkite). The minute it became privately owned by corporations is when they started controlling the content and that was whatever they wanted to supply.
This may very well be the second dumbest thing I read today. Maybe the first. Care to expound upon exactly when the media was a "public service?"
There has been no specific, persuasive evidence shared publicly about the extent of Putin's role or knowledge of the hacking. But Democrats theorize that no such wide-scale espionage operation could have been launched without Putin's approval. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-trump-putin-hacking-allegations-1.3898600
Comments
The party will change. I've said that before. I'm saying it now again. It will change, but not in the snap of a finger like you want it (like a three year old wants things now or throws a fit). Processes are in motion for change to happen. You just don't see it because you see everything through your narrow, jaded viewpoint and have zero involvement with the party on the ground.
My saying that voters got it wrong does not negate my belief that the party will change. Those two ideas are distinct concepts that do not cancel each other out. Critical thinkers can understand that complexity.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Giant ants?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If you don't want bias, either turn on international news or just simply kill your TV. Good God.
Mainstream media is owned by 6 corporations. I'll say it again. Mainstream media is privately owned by only six corporations. And just because they win Pulitzer Prize does not mean they're not biased, nor accurate!
Seriously, do your own research and find out the truth. These media stations that you cite as reputable, prize winners, non-biased? You are being fooled into thinking such a thing. Wake up. This is why we have so many people believing what they hear on the news.
https://www.google.com/search?q=media+owns+six+corporation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/251193/how-the-news-works
Tell me which of the 6 own Thomson Reuters, NPR, BBC & AP again?
What is the appropriate amount of companies to ensure appropriate competition? Look at nearly any industry and a handful of dominant companies likely make up 90%.
But, please, enlighten me. What don't I know about the media.
I read Aljazeera fairly often along w/ other sites. I just can't put my finger on why it feels like I shouldn't be.
They cover a lot of things but it feels like I am doing something wrong by getting info from them.
Does this make sense to anyone?
https://www.google.com/amp/www.molonlabemedia.com/2016/05/06/media-ap-reuters-owned/amp/?client=safari
https://www.google.com/search?q=who+owns+reuters&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
NPR:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/dont_forget_the_facts_about_np.php The media used to be a public service. (think Walter Cronkite). The minute it became privately owned by corporations is when they started controlling the content and that was whatever they wanted to supply.
Again, not anything I'm not unaware of.
College of Media at University Illinois is widely regarded as one of the world's top institutions for media education in various rankings. QS World University Rankings ranked its Media Studies program seventh in the world. My Libby-Lib-Lib-Liberal Arts education provided me the good fortune of attending many of these professors classes.
This may very well be the second dumbest thing I read today. Maybe the first. Care to expound upon exactly when the media was a "public service?"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
What was the first if this was the second?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Are you consistently confounded by rebuttals that mix mainstream media thinking along w/ personal opines?
There has been no specific, persuasive evidence shared publicly about the extent of Putin's role or knowledge of the hacking.
But Democrats theorize that no such wide-scale espionage operation could have been launched without Putin's approval.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-trump-putin-hacking-allegations-1.3898600