Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the MSM reliable?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the MSM reliable?

    Do you have confidence in the mainstream media? CNN has been plugging this impeachment thing, but there's literally nothing there. Pencil-neck Schiff has been locking himself away in a basement trying to find someone to testify against Trump. This has to be the most impeachable impeachment in US history.

    Anyway, the MSM is paying attention to it as if its a legitamte issue. It is an issue, in terms of the Left's derrangement in opposing Trump. But in terms of merit, this thing is dead in the water.

    End rant.
    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

  • #2
    NO.

    Comment


    • #3
      The problem is that if you are sufficiently sceptical the media is a place to start, you can always do your own research. My question is what are the alternatives to the media as a place to start the national conversation? Once the conversation begins you can take it anywhere it needs to go but it has to start from a common thread.

      Some of my favorite YouTube pundits are constantly suggesting that the "lamestream" media is obsolete. Then they go on to talk about stories in the mainstream media? I understand that everyone with a phone is now a potential "journalist" but try sorting through 3 billion videos.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        I lost confidence in the MSM about 10 years ago.

        Comment


        • #5
          It got started long ago with Yellow Journalism that resulted in the US declaring war on Spain. It became apparent with this quote from a former exec.


          It can't get more clear then this thread about CNN's Trump Derangement Syndrome which has resulted in them becoming the cable equivalent of a supermarket rag.
          https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...84-cnn-exposed

          In short; This is how the news is generally presented on most of the TV and Cable sources.
          “Breaking News,”

          “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
            It got started long ago with Yellow Journalism that resulted in the US declaring war on Spain. It became apparent with this quote from a former exec.


            It can't get more clear then this thread about CNN's Trump Derangement Syndrome which has resulted in them becoming the cable equivalent of a supermarket rag.
            https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...84-cnn-exposed

            In short; This is how the news is generally presented on most of the TV and Cable sources.
            It's hard to determine in most cases if the news defines culture or is determined by culture.

            The saying that politics are down stream of culture illustrates how important it is to understand culture. But what is culture? The simplest definition is everything about the social ape that isn't biologically determined. While that definition is accurate it it is to broad to be useful in many situations.

            We are said to be in the middle of a culture war. Broadly defined by the far right vs the far left. Those terms being loosely defined but generally understood to mean ethno nationalism vs communism. Considering that both of these ideologies have a deplorable history most people fall somewhere inbetween on the cultural/political spectrum. As you move to the center the culture war can be defined as a state of mind in which an individual is a patriot or "world citizen" .

            Acknowledging that any description of culture is necessarily an oversimplification it's useful to illustrate the culture war in terms of personalities. Trump is a patriot and Obama a world citizen for example. Trump the populist simpleton and Obama the sophisticated ideologue. Of course those are caricature representations the politized reality down stream of culture.

            Never the less the caricature is accurate enough for our purposes. The media bias that is also downstream of culture can be illustrated by reflecting on the caricatures. Corporate media is either Obamian or Trumpian. The media that is biased in favor of Obama is ideological, more concerned with the ideal than the real. The media bias in favor of Trump more concerned with solutions to immediate problems than ideological purity. The election of Obama a victory for the dreamer and the election of Trump a victory for the common sense realist. Both being downstream of the subculture the individual is embedded in.

            The media is at once both a creature of the subculture and the creator of the Frankenstein subculture. Nobody controls the creature that is at once dead and alive. The living breathing mob that is the demos is itself semi conscious. It does not clearly understand from where it came or where it is going. It is an evolved thing, a creation of the blind watch maker. We see it through the glass darkly.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by American87 View Post
              Do you have confidence in the mainstream media? CNN has been plugging this impeachment thing, but there's literally nothing there. Pencil-neck Schiff has been locking himself away in a basement trying to find someone to testify against Trump. This has to be the most impeachable impeachment in US history.

              Anyway, the MSM is paying attention to it as if its a legitamte issue. It is an issue, in terms of the Left's derrangement in opposing Trump. But in terms of merit, this thing is dead in the water.

              End rant.
              compared to the alternative, kinda sorta....
              I get all my information in this forum, anyhow....
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • #8
                Same answer as on the previous thread about this: No.

                As Wolfhnd points out, we can do our own research; however, we can longer be sure if the sources we check are reliable anymore. And since the discussion of politics is all about the information presented by an untrustworthy media world, discussing who did what to whom is now iffy at best.

                Ironically, more and more forum members are returning to the once-reviled Fox News.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                  Comment


                  • #10


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Given what I’ve read of the alternative, it’s the best option.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
                        Given what I’ve read of the alternative, it’s the best option.
                        What is?
                        MSM brainwashing?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
                          Given what I’ve read of the alternative, it’s the best option.
                          CNN is NOT the only alternative.
                          People who want to hear news that has nothing to do with Trump have lots of options all over the net.

                          But what is "reliable" supposed to mean, and how can you hold any TV channel to that standard without resorting to censorship?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thr problem.with the main stream media is not so much that what it reports is inaccurate, though occasionally it is, it is not often. The biggest issue is that the mainstream media doesn't report all the facts or.rhe context, which is important for understanding an issue.

                            The media devoted a great deal of national attention to the shooting of a black person by a white officer, but very little national attention is given when it a black is shot by a black officer, or a white person is shot by black officer. This gives the distorted, deliberately I suspect impression that it is only unarmed blacks that get shot by police. The numbers of unarmed whites shot by the police are about the same. The majority of blacks are shot and killed by fellow blacks. "Black Lives Matter" , but apparently it is only the 2% that are shot by the police that matter, the other 90% shot and killed by other blacks lives do not matter. The police gave a lot of press to the Amber Guyger trial and shooting, but virtual none to the trial and conviction of Officer Mohammed Noor.

                            If all you hear is the facts of one side of an argument and none for the other, you are going to get a distorted view. We hear the about the glowing reports of windmills for generating electricity, but the fact of millions of bats killed every year by them is quietly shelved to the back pages.

                            The mainstream media is good at alerting people about disasters, both human and natural, and potential threats, and long range changes. It's best role is to make one aware of items that requires further investigation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Because blacks are still under attack from whites, such stories garner more attention. This isn't the fault of the media or BLM, it's the fault of a racist history and mentality that's still present today. Guyger had text messages on her phone that revealed she was racist, which naturally brings into question the motivation behind her actions. Similar and even worse messages have been revealed from thousands of white officers across the country. When there is reason to believe that race is no longer an issue, then people will stop fretting over these situations. Until then, actions carry consequences.

                              When black officers start exchanging racist messages at the rate of white officers, I imagine the coverage will start to shift.

                              As it relates to the original question, it depends on what you mean by reliable. I'm sure those who watch CNN are being served exactly what they want to see. Similarly, Fox is serving the type of content their audience wants to see. Hard to fault either for doing what's in the best interest of their companies.

                              I believe both sides put out the facts, the majority of the time, they just put it out with a conservative or liberal spin. No different than what everyone here does.

                              Unfortunately, the alternative is more dangerous and less reliable than MSM. The alternatives are also just as guilty, if not more so, of being conservative or liberal biased.
                              "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                              - Benjamin Franklin

                              The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X