"I see dead people"

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 3:00:00 PM (view original):

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"

Again, missing the point.

You say the media has "gotten farther and farther from the TRUTH, and closer to personal opinions, cultural activism, and sensationalism."

But you and I can't even agree on what the TRUTH is regarding climate change. So we've created a demographic for both "truths." What choice does the media have but to try to appeal to their chosen demographic?

So you're cool if the media "picks a side" and "reports" what their demographic wants to hear?


And you wonder why Trump uses twitter to get his message across?

I'm not missing the point. I'm the one who brought it up. Whether I think we have enough evidence of "climate change" to be able to make blanket predictions, it doesn't change my POINT, which was "the media has an agenda, and that's why you can't accept anything at face value". You brought up "climate change" and I expanded my point to "the scientific community also has an agenda, and that's why you can't accept anything at face value".

Put it this way, if a climatologist/planetologist wants to have a job, what do they need to do? If your answer is anything except "generate funding any way possible", then you need a reality check.

Posted by toddcommish on 12/14/2016 4:00:00 PM (view original):
I'm not missing the point. I'm the one who brought it up. Whether I think we have enough evidence of "climate change" to be able to make blanket predictions, it doesn't change my POINT, which was "the media has an agenda, and that's why you can't accept anything at face value". You brought up "climate change" and I expanded my point to "the scientific community also has an agenda, and that's why you can't accept anything at face value".

Put it this way, if a climatologist/planetologist wants to have a job, what do they need to do? If your answer is anything except "generate funding any way possible", then you need a reality check.

"my POINT, which was "the media has an agenda, and that's why you can't accept anything at face value"

The media's agenda is: attract as many eyeballs as possible to sell advertising and make money.

Climate change was just an example of an issue where counterpoints get reported as truth. There's an evidence based truth that most scientists agree on: climate change is a man-made problem. Then there's a non-evidence based "truth" that gets pushed by certain media outlets that climate change is not man made.

If you say that the problem is the media not reporting the truth, we have to decide what the truth actually is. Because, as long as people believe dumb-*** **** like, "scientists can make more money working for government grants on climate change research than they can working for oil companies denying climate change," there will be a valuable group of eyeballs available for media outlets to cater to.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 3:47:00 PM (view original):
So you're cool if the media "picks a side" and "reports" what their demographic wants to hear?


And you wonder why Trump uses twitter to get his message across?

BL?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 3:47:00 PM (view original):
So you're cool if the media "picks a side" and "reports" what their demographic wants to hear?


And you wonder why Trump uses twitter to get his message across?

BL?

The media is being replaced by social media. Good riddance to those hacks. Too bad social media is probably worse.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 3:47:00 PM (view original):
So you're cool if the media "picks a side" and "reports" what their demographic wants to hear?


And you wonder why Trump uses twitter to get his message across?

Two different points.

1) We need good journalists. We need them to ask questions and hold Obama, Trump, Clinton, Congress, Governors, Mayors, etc. accountable. Things like the Flint water crisis don't get addressed without good journalists. Trump using twitter is great for him. He gets to put out 140 character PR releases without having to answer any questions about it. It's bad for us.

2) I'm not cool with the media picking a truth and running with it. I'd much rather they report what the actual truth is. But the reality of the world we live in is that it can be very profitable to appeal to people who want to hear a different truth.

1. I don't disagree but I just watched a doc on Weiner. Not one journalist cared about his positions in the NYC mayoral race. They cared about his sexting and the location of Huma. Were they all ****** journalists?

2. Going back to #1, if they can't differentiate between important news and "news" we want to hear, do they serve a purpose?

FWIW, the news outlets report his tweets and then discuss them. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Unless, of course, it's FOX, who loves him, or CNN, who doesn't. They slant their views of the tweets when all of us can read them just fine.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 5:13:00 PM (view original):
1. I don't disagree but I just watched a doc on Weiner. Not one journalist cared about his positions in the NYC mayoral race. They cared about his sexting and the location of Huma. Were they all ****** journalists?

2. Going back to #1, if they can't differentiate between important news and "news" we want to hear, do they serve a purpose?

FWIW, the news outlets report his tweets and then discuss them. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Unless, of course, it's FOX, who loves him, or CNN, who doesn't. They slant their views of the tweets when all of us can read them just fine.

1) I don;t know, I didn't watch the doc. Are all journalists bad/useless if some journalists are bad/useless? I don't understand your desire to group them all together. The fact that there are a lot of ****** journalists doesn't preclude good journalists from still being a necessary part of our society.

2) You say "they" like all journalists can't differentiate between important news and "news."

Regarding his tweets, yeah news outlets report them and usually fact check them. But it's next to useless. Forcing Trump to actually address/back up the statements he makes is a much more powerful and valuable tool that is really only available to the media.

Regarding CNN, they are the worst. Not because they are anti-trump. But because, at least for the most part, they are anti-position. They weigh every issue as if there are two, equally valid sides.

Trump tweets: I hate women
Fox News: How can we spin this?
MSNBC: How can we get him impeached?
CNN: Let's find six panelists, three that like women and three that hate women and let them have equal time.

Well, we both agree that the best, or most convenient, way to become a "name" in the industry is to appeal to the masses. The masses want dirt or confirmation not fact. I'm sure I watch the "dumb" news but I can't find a channel that isn't agenda-based. There simply isn't much "fair and balanced" news. Most times, it's like watching The View with all of them saying they'll move to Canada.

CNN gets 6 people who like women then tell them in advance the question and how to answer it.

They have been caught doing this already.

CNN=Fake news

Posted by raucous on 12/14/2016 6:35:00 PM (view original):
CNN gets 6 people who like women then tell them in advance the question and how to answer it.

They have been caught doing this already.

CNN=Fake news

See? This guy is an idiot.

CNN hired Trump's campaign manager and pretended like he was a normal contributor.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/14/2016 6:23:00 PM (view original):
Well, we both agree that the best, or most convenient, way to become a "name" in the industry is to appeal to the masses. The masses want dirt or confirmation not fact. I'm sure I watch the "dumb" news but I can't find a channel that isn't agenda-based. There simply isn't much "fair and balanced" news. Most times, it's like watching The View with all of them saying they'll move to Canada.

There is no such thing as agenda-free anything. Everyone always has an agenda.

Most of the really good journalism happens in print. NYT, WaPo, and the WSJ are world class organizations. Yeah their editorial/opinion pages can be nuts and their columnists are attention whores, but the actual investigating and reporting are necessary. If they disappear, we are all worse off.

Megan Kelly is a pretty good example. I'd heard of her, knew who she was, didn't care. My assumption is she wasn't that big of a deal. She has a tiff with Trump, she's on the news every day. Pretty sure she's a hot commodity these days. She didn't get better. She got recognized. How could the up and comer care as much about as reporting the news when being confrontational with a candidate can get you so much more?