Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Here's the problem with the media:

Trump went to the Army-Navy game. Was very complimentary of the armed forces and the players on the field. Yet he made one comment "This might not necessarily be the best football" and that's was the headline. He followed up with something along the lines of "But they have a lot spirit and fight in them."

Anyone who knows anything about college football knows that the Army/Navy players are not the best. They are playing football before they begin their real careers as soldiers. Yet "Trump disparages players at Army-Navy game" is the headline.

So why go thru the media when he can reach the masses without them?

That's dumb. And it's not any better when the media does/did the same thing to Obama and GW. But we all are worse off if the President never has to answer questions from anyone. Circumventing the press isn't brilliant, it's deceitful.


EDIT: It's the difference between moy and rational people (like you and I). You and I may agree with a politician's positions or actions, but we aren't giving blanket love to that politician no matter what he does. moy is.

I don't think it's dumb. Right now, he's just PEOTUS. Getting what he wants to the general public is a good thing. Now, if he refuses to hold State of the Unions or simply refuses to ever meet with the WH press corps in January, that's something different. But, right now, he doesn't need his words twisted, quotes shortened or flat out misrepresentation of what he said.

Seriously, he was very complimentary of the military and the players. But, in our "Only need the headlines" society, he dissed our future military leaders.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Here's the problem with the media:

Trump went to the Army-Navy game. Was very complimentary of the armed forces and the players on the field. Yet he made one comment "This might not necessarily be the best football" and that's was the headline. He followed up with something along the lines of "But they have a lot spirit and fight in them."

Anyone who knows anything about college football knows that the Army/Navy players are not the best. They are playing football before they begin their real careers as soldiers. Yet "Trump disparages players at Army-Navy game" is the headline.

So why go thru the media when he can reach the masses without them?

That's dumb. And it's not any better when the media does/did the same thing to Obama and GW. But we all are worse off if the President never has to answer questions from anyone. Circumventing the press isn't brilliant, it's deceitful.


EDIT: It's the difference between moy and rational people (like you and I). You and I may agree with a politician's positions or actions, but we aren't giving blanket love to that politician no matter what he does. moy is.

I don't think it's dumb. Right now, he's just PEOTUS. Getting what he wants to the general public is a good thing. Now, if he refuses to hold State of the Unions or simply refuses to ever meet with the WH press corps in January, that's something different. But, right now, he doesn't need his words twisted, quotes shortened or flat out misrepresentation of what he said.

Seriously, he was very complimentary of the military and the players. But, in our "Only need the headlines" society, he dissed our future military leaders.

No, I was agreeing with you that it's dumb for the media to make a big deal out of **** that doesn't matter (or distort what was actually said).

The press/media is part of the problem, not the solution. They've gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism. It's exacerbated by their pathological (and financial) need to be the first to break a story, and the short-attention span of the public.

And what do you get? A public, largely misinformed by an activist and journalistically bankrupt media, either blindly following/parroting the (pun intended) trumped-up, unsubstantiated news or cynically viewing everything through their own lens of confirmation bias....

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
The press/media is part of the problem, not the solution. They've gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism. It's exacerbated by their pathological (and financial) need to be the first to break a story, and the short-attention span of the public.

And what do you get? A public, largely misinformed by an activist and journalistically bankrupt media, either blindly following/parroting the (pun intended) trumped-up, unsubstantiated news or cynically viewing everything through their own lens of confirmation bias....

Flawed or not, we need journalism.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
The press/media is part of the problem, not the solution. They've gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism. It's exacerbated by their pathological (and financial) need to be the first to break a story, and the short-attention span of the public.

And what do you get? A public, largely misinformed by an activist and journalistically bankrupt media, either blindly following/parroting the (pun intended) trumped-up, unsubstantiated news or cynically viewing everything through their own lens of confirmation bias....

Flawed or not, we need journalism.

And Todd, for the most part, I agree.

It's really the fault of the population as a whole and how we think. We decide we believe something and then message shop, only looking for "news" that fits what we've already decided is true.

For example, climate change. The scientific evidence shows that man-made climate change is happening. But there are media outlets (mostly web, but Fox does it somewhat) that indulge the fantasy that either climate change isn't happening or that it isn't man-made. They do this because there's a demographic asking for that message.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
The press/media is part of the problem, not the solution. They've gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism. It's exacerbated by their pathological (and financial) need to be the first to break a story, and the short-attention span of the public.

And what do you get? A public, largely misinformed by an activist and journalistically bankrupt media, either blindly following/parroting the (pun intended) trumped-up, unsubstantiated news or cynically viewing everything through their own lens of confirmation bias....

Flawed or not, we need journalism.

But we're not getting it.

We're getting activists that are pushing their personal agendae. And the problem is that we are developing some blind spots to real problems because fewer and fewer people are trusting the "journalists". I agree that real, legitimate journalism has a place in society, which is why I despise the current media.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
The press/media is part of the problem, not the solution. They've gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism. It's exacerbated by their pathological (and financial) need to be the first to break a story, and the short-attention span of the public.

And what do you get? A public, largely misinformed by an activist and journalistically bankrupt media, either blindly following/parroting the (pun intended) trumped-up, unsubstantiated news or cynically viewing everything through their own lens of confirmation bias....

Flawed or not, we need journalism.

And Todd, for the most part, I agree.

It's really the fault of the population as a whole and how we think. We decide we believe something and then message shop, only looking for "news" that fits what we've already decided is true.

For example, climate change. The scientific evidence shows that man-made climate change is happening. But there are media outlets (mostly web, but Fox does it somewhat) that indulge the fantasy that either climate change isn't happening or that it isn't man-made. They do this because there's a demographic asking for that message.

I'd argue that scientists are just as guilty as promoting their own agendae. First, it was "global warming". Then, when the climatological data shifted, it became "climate change". Scientists are saying what they need to say to attract funding, whether government or private. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Yes, the climate is changing. IT'S ALWAYS CHANGING. This planet is 4,000,000,000 years old. There have been ice-ages and cometary catastrophes. We have had thermometers for 400 years. We've had estimated extra-planetary temperatures for 40. Drawing conclusions about what cars and spray cans might be doing to the future of a planet based on .00000001 worth of planetary data is presumptuous to say the least.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
The press/media is part of the problem, not the solution. They've gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism. It's exacerbated by their pathological (and financial) need to be the first to break a story, and the short-attention span of the public.

And what do you get? A public, largely misinformed by an activist and journalistically bankrupt media, either blindly following/parroting the (pun intended) trumped-up, unsubstantiated news or cynically viewing everything through their own lens of confirmation bias....

Flawed or not, we need journalism.

And Todd, for the most part, I agree.

It's really the fault of the population as a whole and how we think. We decide we believe something and then message shop, only looking for "news" that fits what we've already decided is true.

For example, climate change. The scientific evidence shows that man-made climate change is happening. But there are media outlets (mostly web, but Fox does it somewhat) that indulge the fantasy that either climate change isn't happening or that it isn't man-made. They do this because there's a demographic asking for that message.

Awesome! Your example is EXACTLY part of the problem. Climate Change is something most people don't care about, or at least rank it very low on a scale of their concerns. Yet, the media prop up a minority issue like climate change and pretend its all anyone should care about. They do this with every issue... hey look 1 time there was this white cop that shot a black guy in the back, we should make it out ti look like all white cops are shooting black men in the back!! Hey look 1 bakery won't bake a cake for a gay wedding, we should make this look like all catholic bakers hate gays!!

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/26/un-poll-puts-climate-change-lowest-global-concerns/

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 12:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Here's the problem with the media:

Trump went to the Army-Navy game. Was very complimentary of the armed forces and the players on the field. Yet he made one comment "This might not necessarily be the best football" and that's was the headline. He followed up with something along the lines of "But they have a lot spirit and fight in them."

Anyone who knows anything about college football knows that the Army/Navy players are not the best. They are playing football before they begin their real careers as soldiers. Yet "Trump disparages players at Army-Navy game" is the headline.

So why go thru the media when he can reach the masses without them?

That's dumb. And it's not any better when the media does/did the same thing to Obama and GW. But we all are worse off if the President never has to answer questions from anyone. Circumventing the press isn't brilliant, it's deceitful.


EDIT: It's the difference between moy and rational people (like you and I). You and I may agree with a politician's positions or actions, but we aren't giving blanket love to that politician no matter what he does. moy is.

I don't think it's dumb. Right now, he's just PEOTUS. Getting what he wants to the general public is a good thing. Now, if he refuses to hold State of the Unions or simply refuses to ever meet with the WH press corps in January, that's something different. But, right now, he doesn't need his words twisted, quotes shortened or flat out misrepresentation of what he said.

Seriously, he was very complimentary of the military and the players. But, in our "Only need the headlines" society, he dissed our future military leaders.

No, I was agreeing with you that it's dumb for the media to make a big deal out of **** that doesn't matter (or distort what was actually said).

So why is is such a bad thing to go around the media that's making a big deal out of **** that doesn't matter? The media is there to "sell news". Honestly, I looked at the damn article after the headline to see what dumb **** Trump said. And I'm sure I "dug" a lot deeper than most.

Our media summed up in one sentence.... "Stay tuned to find out what can kill you in your own home!"

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
The press/media is part of the problem, not the solution. They've gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism. It's exacerbated by their pathological (and financial) need to be the first to break a story, and the short-attention span of the public.

And what do you get? A public, largely misinformed by an activist and journalistically bankrupt media, either blindly following/parroting the (pun intended) trumped-up, unsubstantiated news or cynically viewing everything through their own lens of confirmation bias....

Flawed or not, we need journalism.

And Todd, for the most part, I agree.

It's really the fault of the population as a whole and how we think. We decide we believe something and then message shop, only looking for "news" that fits what we've already decided is true.

For example, climate change. The scientific evidence shows that man-made climate change is happening. But there are media outlets (mostly web, but Fox does it somewhat) that indulge the fantasy that either climate change isn't happening or that it isn't man-made. They do this because there's a demographic asking for that message.

I'd argue that scientists are just as guilty as promoting their own agendae. First, it was "global warming". Then, when the climatological data shifted, it became "climate change". Scientists are saying what they need to say to attract funding, whether government or private. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Yes, the climate is changing. IT'S ALWAYS CHANGING. This planet is 4,000,000,000 years old. There have been ice-ages and cometary catastrophes. We have had thermometers for 400 years. We've had estimated extra-planetary temperatures for 40. Drawing conclusions about what cars and spray cans might be doing to the future of a planet based on .00000001 worth of planetary data is presumptuous to say the least.

This is what I mean. You aren't a scientist. You aren't capable of deciding what evidence is good and what evidence is bad. So you decide climate change is a vast conspiracy to get government grant money and only pay attention to media that confirms your belief.

Ignoring the obvious truth that there is way more money to be had on the oil/denial side of the ledger.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 2:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 1:21:00 PM (view original):
The press/media is part of the problem, not the solution. They've gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism. It's exacerbated by their pathological (and financial) need to be the first to break a story, and the short-attention span of the public.

And what do you get? A public, largely misinformed by an activist and journalistically bankrupt media, either blindly following/parroting the (pun intended) trumped-up, unsubstantiated news or cynically viewing everything through their own lens of confirmation bias....

Flawed or not, we need journalism.

And Todd, for the most part, I agree.

It's really the fault of the population as a whole and how we think. We decide we believe something and then message shop, only looking for "news" that fits what we've already decided is true.

For example, climate change. The scientific evidence shows that man-made climate change is happening. But there are media outlets (mostly web, but Fox does it somewhat) that indulge the fantasy that either climate change isn't happening or that it isn't man-made. They do this because there's a demographic asking for that message.

I'd argue that scientists are just as guilty as promoting their own agendae. First, it was "global warming". Then, when the climatological data shifted, it became "climate change". Scientists are saying what they need to say to attract funding, whether government or private. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Yes, the climate is changing. IT'S ALWAYS CHANGING. This planet is 4,000,000,000 years old. There have been ice-ages and cometary catastrophes. We have had thermometers for 400 years. We've had estimated extra-planetary temperatures for 40. Drawing conclusions about what cars and spray cans might be doing to the future of a planet based on .00000001 worth of planetary data is presumptuous to say the least.

This is what I mean. You aren't a scientist. You aren't capable of deciding what evidence is good and what evidence is bad. So you decide climate change is a vast conspiracy to get government grant money and only pay attention to media that confirms your belief.

Ignoring the obvious truth that there is way more money to be had on the oil/denial side of the ledger.

So, what caused the ice age(s) that happened in the past? That was massive planetary climate change (and subsequent global warming to get us up to habitable temperatures)... Until that's explained by scientists as a man-made event, they're making some BIG assumptions about our effect on the climate of this planet.

You're missing the point. You believe that climate change is a conspiracy. You are now part of a demographic that the "news" is trying to appeal to with belief confirmation instead of the truth--that almost all climate scientists think man-made climate change is real because that's what the evidence shows.

And there are certainly examples on the left of the same thing.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/14/2016 2:39:00 PM (view original):
You're missing the point. You believe that climate change is a conspiracy. You are now part of a demographic that the "news" is trying to appeal to with belief confirmation instead of the truth--that almost all climate scientists think man-made climate change is real because that's what the evidence shows.

Don't tell me what i believe. "Climate Change" is a euphemism for "we don't know what the **** causes planetary weather patterns". It isn't a "conspiracy" any more than you-agreeing-with-your-boss to keep your job is a conspiracy. Scientists that say "climate change" is going to kill mankind get money and grants. It's Pavlovian more than it's a conspiracy.

The evidence has been gathered over the last few decades. And it's relying on .000000001 of the true evidence (full planetary history). ANY conclusion you draw is based on very limited sample size.data. If you say mankind needs to stop spreading waste and garbage or we'll screw up the planet, you're right. If you say that mankind is altering the weather on this big-rock that is flying through a galaxy flying through a universe, then I'd say "I think you not be seeing the bigger picture"