Can we all agree the media in this country is just the worst?

[Poker_Tiger]

On all sides. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, CBS...so on. I would love to hear one non-biased, fact based, clear voice that can simply inform you of the news of the day.

I have not been following the children immigration/separation topic very closely, because, you know, I have a life and things to do. So when I finally do get a chance today to catch up on it, I had to flip between 4 channels for an hour and a half to hear various distortions of the events in order to piece together what I think is the right context (thought I cannot be 100% sure), where as 15-20 years ago, I would have had the whole story in 5 min by watching the evening news.

I am telling you, the media is a huge, huge problem for the country right now. So much misinformation going around it is sickening.

#feelbetter
/rant

 

[blythewood tigers]

Watch Ron Paul's Liberty Report, the man doesn't know how to lie and has been ripped by all your aforementioned news stations for such.

 

[Rychek4]

On all sides. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, CBS...so on. I would love to hear one non-biased, fact based, clear voice that can simply inform you of the news of the day.

I have not been following the children immigration/separation topic very closely, because, you know, I have a life and things to do. So when I finally do get a chance today to catch up on it, I had to flip between 4 channels for an hour and a half to hear various distortions of the events in order to piece together what I think is the right context (thought I cannot be 100% sure), where as 15-20 years ago, I would have had the whole story in 5 min by watching the evening news.

I am telling you, the media is a huge, huge problem for the country right now. So much misinformation going around it is sickening.

#feelbetter
/rant

You aren't wrong, in a lot of ways they have prioritized profits over honest reporting. The key to navigating the media today is to find multiple sources and try to find the points of overlap. It's not as much fun as going straight to the source that makes you feel good, but it's a more honest way to consume media and become informed.

 

[Poker_Tiger]

You aren't wrong, in a lot of ways they have prioritized profits over honest reporting. The key to navigating the media today is to find multiple sources and try to find the points of overlap. It's not as much fun as going straight to the source that makes you feel good, but it's a more honest way to consume media and become informed.

And it’s a lot of work. Not everyone is going to do that. Depending on how busy I am, I won’t do that.

 

[Rychek4]

And it’s a lot of work. Not everyone is going to do that. Depending on how busy I am, I won’t do that.

Which is fine as long as you are willing to admit that, on some subjects, political or not, you are not informed enough to have an educated opinion. I've said those very words on this forum before and I think it's important to have an understanding of what we don't know.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Yep, you are absolutely right. I consume a lot of news, from huffington post to foxnews. THEN I have to go look stuff up to see who is lying about things (the answer is usually... both sides).

Unfortunately, the fault is our own. We as a society would much rather watch people scream at each other (preferably with the side we support "winning") than have someone just say what happened. As is pointed out above, the first goals of every single "news" agency is ratings and profit. The higher the ratings, the more they get to charge advertisers, the more profit.

That's what's driving these shows. I'd point out Hannity on FoxNews and Madow on MSNBC as prime examples. Both these folks intentionally set up their shows and delivery to look like what we'd consider news. But both are clearly shills for their respective sides of the aisle. They both do make valid points, but it's though a filter of their own partisan views.

 

[blythewood tigers]

Yep, you are absolutely right. I consume a lot of news, from huffington post to foxnews. THEN I have to go look stuff up to see who is lying about things (the answer is usually... both sides).

Unfortunately, the fault is our own. We as a society would much rather watch people scream at each other (preferably with the side we support "winning") than have someone just say what happened. As is pointed out above, the first goals of every single "news" agency is ratings and profit. The higher the ratings, the more they get to charge advertisers, the more profit.

That's what's driving these shows. I'd point out Hannity on FoxNews and Madow on MSNBC as prime examples. Both these folks intentionally set up their shows and delivery to look like what we'd consider news. But both are clearly shills for their respective sides of the aisle. They both do make valid points, but it's though a filter of their own partisan views.

I agree. What is broadcast now follows a "reality" show narrative, i.e. a bunch of bright lights, moving camera's, suspenseful music, etc.. The best way to dig into this narrative is to find out who owns or funds each show. As most will uncover, a single entity owns multiple "informative" outlets such as T.V., websites, Newspapers, magazines, etc.. and its only getting worse as acquisitions occur more frequently than ever.

As a Jim Morrison quote goes, "Whoever controls the media, controls the mind". This issue is as old as the spread of "information" is.

 

[blythewood tigers]

Which is fine as long as you are willing to admit that, on some subjects, political or not, you are not informed enough to have an educated opinion. I've said those very words on this forum before and I think it's important to have an understanding of what we don't know.

Very true.
But what we do know, to OP's point, the vast majority (bought and paid for) media today is corrupt. We don't have to investigate much to discover this truth.

 

[firegiver]

Cable news is not worth watching, it will mis inform you on purpose and beat you to death with pundits. Read actual journalism like AP news, do NOT listen or believe 'commentators' who have no rule of ethics as it pertains to delivery of the news. Avoid Maddow, Hannity and Carlson. They are PAID to misinform and be entertaining, THEY ARE NOT JOURNALISTS.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Cable news is not worth watching, it will mis inform you on purpose and beat you to death with pundits. Read actual journalism like AP news, do NOT listen or believe 'commentators' who have no rule of ethics as it pertains to delivery of the news. Avoid Maddow, Hannity and Carlson. They are PAID to misinform and be entertaining, THEY ARE NOT JOURNALISTS.

Agreed. And although I lean more left than most on this board, I'll give Hannity his due here. He just flat out admitted that he wasn't a journalist. As least he's an honest shill!

 

[orangelvis]

Agreed. And although I lean more left than most on this board, I'll give Hannity his due here. He just flat out admitted that he wasn't a journalist. As least he's an honest shill!

True, he's never claimed to be a journalist. He does however, interview investigative journalist every show. He's been the closest to being correct during the entire Russia Collusion story.

 

[FLaw47]

True, he's never claimed to be a journalist. He does however, interview investigative journalist every show. He's been the closest to being correct during the entire Russia Collusion story.

Jesus Christ.

 

[Rychek4]

True, he's never claimed to be a journalist. He does however, interview investigative journalist every show. He's been the closest to being correct during the entire Russia Collusion story.

I don't believe we have enough facts yet to anoint anyone as "closest to being correct" at this time.

 

[blythewood tigers]

True, he's never claimed to be a journalist. He does however, interview investigative journalist every show. He's been the closest to being correct during the entire Russia Collusion story.

You really need to get over the "Russian Collusion" hump. If someone complains about any other country somehow adversely effecting American politics they are not worth their salt in past or current world politics. Every person on this board would agree that the USA is the premier world power and has been for decades, are we also naïve enough to believe we (the USA) don't collude and contrive in another country's affairs? We don't just "collude", we overthrow, invade, kill and whatever else you can imagine. The US is the worst example of and the poster child of the very word, collusion.

Our so-called "allies" do more damage (bureaucrats/foreign affairs/lobbyists, etc..) to our country than Russia ever thought of.

 

[hopefultiger13]

True, he's never claimed to be a journalist. He does however, interview investigative journalist every show. He's been the closest to being correct during the entire Russia Collusion story.

If by "right" you mean the person who most slavishly follows Trump, you are correct. If Trump said the sky was green, Hannity would put up a "Clinton Crime Family" board showing how she dyed the sky green. Then he'd tell us to trust Trump and not our lying eyes.

 

[orangelvis]

You really need to get over the "Russian Collusion" hump. If someone complains about any other country somehow adversely effecting American politics they are not worth their salt in past or current world politics. Every person on this board would agree that the USA is the premier world power and has been for decades, are we also naïve enough to believe we (the USA) don't collude and contrive in another country's affairs? We don't just "collude", we overthrow, invade, kill and whatever else you can imagine. The US is the worst example of and the poster child of the very word, collusion.

Our so-called "allies" do more damage (bureaucrats/foreign affairs/lobbyists, etc..) to our country than Russia ever thought of.

I actually agree with most of this, but why should anyone get over the Russian Collusion hump? It is turning into exactly what I've been saying it is. A conspiracy by the Obama/Clinton admin to first get Hillary elected, then run Trump out of office. It has been hammered by the msm for 1.5 years and believed by many people on this board that I've been arguing with for quite a while now. There's a reason the MSM has basically dropped the story. They know what's coming! They carried water for the cover up of the truth the whole time. Did you know that 12 FBI agents received dinners, drinks and sporting event tickets from the MSM? It's in the report. If not, why don't you know? Maybe because the place(s) you get your news doesn't want you to know. I've been asking people on here look up John Huber, because I can tell they don't have a clue who he is or what he's been up to since last November. They either know and don't want to talk about it, or they're satisfied with not knowing. Doesn't change the fact that he exist and is up to something the Hillary/Obamites will not be happy about. If WaterGate was a big thing, and it was, then Russia Collusion is the Apocalypse of Constitutional Crisis.

 

[firegiver]

True, he's never claimed to be a journalist. He does however, interview investigative journalist every show. He's been the closest to being correct during the entire Russia Collusion story.

LOL and there it is.

 

[nytigerfan]

True, he's never claimed to be a journalist. He does however, interview investigative journalist every show. He's been the closest to being correct during the entire Russia Collusion story.

 

[orangelvis]

LOL and there it is.

Well, to be fair, many of you here said Trump wouldn't make it six months, then it was a year. He'll be impeached, yada yada yada. While the other outlets sit around and call Trump names, challenge his sanity, etc. Hannity, through the investigative reporters was showing this entire narrative that Trump colluded with Russia to be bogus. Just stay tuned, the biggest sh!t that ever hit a fan is slowly but surely happening. Did you miss the tweet from Yahoo news that I posted in an earlier thread today. Apparently, Obama cyber chief, Michael Daniels gave some interesting testimony on capital hill yesterday. Have you discovered who John Huber is and what he's been doing since November?
No worries, I'll be here to explain it all.

 

[orangelvis]

Here's what conservatives are up against in this country with not only extreme media bias, but social media bias as well. Yet, we're winning anyway.

http://www.breitbart.com/border/201...tograph-to-raise-18-million-for-border-cause/

 

[FLaw47]

Well, to be fair, many of you here said Trump wouldn't make it six months, then it was a year. He'll be impeached, yada yada yada. While the other outlets sit around and call Trump names, challenge his sanity, etc. Hannity, through the investigative reporters was showing this entire narrative that Trump colluded with Russia to be bogus. Just stay tuned, the biggest sh!t that ever hit a fan is slowly but surely happening. Did you miss the tweet from Yahoo news that I posted in an earlier thread today. Apparently, Obama cyber chief, Michael Daniels gave some interesting testimony on capital hill yesterday. Have you discovered who John Huber is and what he's been doing since November?
No worries, I'll be here to explain it all.

Is there a way I can just hide an entire post that says "stay tuned"? I don't want to unfollow you entirely but there is strong correlation between you saying "Stay tuned" and your post being worthless.

 

[Rychek4]

Here's what conservatives are up against in this country with not only extreme media bias, but social media bias as well. Yet, we're winning anyway.

http://www.breitbart.com/border/201...tograph-to-raise-18-million-for-border-cause/

Your standard for evidence is a single photo. This is why people are easily manipulated.

 

[orangelvis]

Your standard for evidence is a single photo. This is why people are easily manipulated.

A single photo from 2014 is how this whole mess was propagated.

 

[Rychek4]

Lets break this down:

Well, to be fair, many of you here said Trump wouldn't make it six months, then it was a year. He'll be impeached, yada yada yada.

Who said that? Specifically.

While the other outlets sit around and call Trump names, challenge his sanity, etc.

What other credible outlets? Specifically.

Hannity, through the investigative reporters was showing this entire narrative that Trump colluded with Russia to be bogus.

Who were the investigative reporters? Specifically.

Did you miss the tweet from Yahoo news that I posted in an earlier thread today. Apparently, Obama cyber chief, Michael Daniels gave some interesting testimony on capital hill yesterday.

Yes we saw the news, what is your point?

Have you discovered who John Huber is and what he's been doing since November?

Yes I know who he is, Huber is a good man, what is your point?

No worries, I'll be here to explain it all.

Then maybe you should explain it, with evidence that isn't a single photo or a hushed whisper in a hallway. It's conspiracy theories all the way down with you. Ask a million questions but don't answer anything and certainly don't back any of it up with credible evidence, and no, Brietbart isn't any more of a credible source than the Huffington Post.

 

[orangelvis]

Is there a way I can just hide an entire post that says "stay tuned"? I don't want to unfollow you entirely but there is strong correlation between you saying "Stay tuned" and your post being worthless.

Just hard for me to believe that people are not more concerned about a sitting administration conspiring to overturn an election. If you don't see that as a legitimate possibility, then you're not paying attention. Not you specifically. I see people making comments that reveal their lack of basic understanding. Understanding that the Congress has constitutional oversight of the FBI?DOJ and that when Rosenstein refuses to comply with subpoenaed information, he is subject to impeachment himself, would be one example.

 

[orangelvis]

Lets break this down:


Who said that? Specifically. Quite a few in various threads during the first year after election


What other credible outlets? Specifically. You tell me what is a credible outlet. Educate me.


Who were the investigative reporters? Specifically. Sara Carter is the primary one.


Yes we saw the news, what is your point?


Yes I know who he is, Huber is a good man, what is your point?


Then maybe you should explain it, with evidence that isn't a single photo or a hushed whisper in a hallway. It's conspiracy theories all the way down with you. Ask a million questions but don't answer anything and certainly don't back any of it up with credible evidence, and no, Brietbart isn't any more of a credible source than the Huffington Post.

Give me evidence that Breitbart isn't credible.

 

[Rychek4]

Lets break this down:

A conspiracy by the Obama/Clinton admin to first get Hillary elected, then run Trump out of office.

Where is the evidence of this? What credible source is reporting this? How is Hillary or Obama involved?

It has been hammered by the msm for 1.5 years and believed by many people on this board that I've been arguing with for quite a while now.

What has been "hammered by the msm"? The Russia Collusion story? Sure, because there have been actual indictments. We don't know all the facts but we know something is happening. We have evidence something is happening.

There's a reason the MSM has basically dropped the story. They know what's coming! They carried water for the cover up of the truth the whole time.

Dropped what story? The Russia Collusion story? You just said they "hammered" it, now they aren't? It's still the top story almost every day on all the news networks.

Did you know that 12 FBI agents received dinners, drinks and sporting event tickets from the MSM? It's in the report.

What report? Was it illegal? Quid-pro-quo? Is there evidence?

If not, why don't you know? Maybe because the place(s) you get your news doesn't want you to know.

Because you didn't specify what report you are referring too. I can't look it up without a name or some idea of what it is about.

I've been asking people on here look up John Huber, because I can tell they don't have a clue who he is or what he's been up to since last November.

As I said in the other post Huber is a good man, but please, inform me, what is he up too.

They either know and don't want to talk about it, or they're satisfied with not knowing. Doesn't change the fact that he exist and is up to something the Hillary/Obamites will not be happy about.

He is investigating the FBI, we know this. Is Hillary or Obama involved? We don't know. Do you know? How do you know? Do you have evidence? Has someone credible reported on this yet?

If WaterGate was a big thing, and it was, then Russia Collusion is the Apocalypse of Constitutional Crisis.

It might be, but I don't think it will be for the reason that you do.

 

[orangelvis]

Lets break this down:


Where is the evidence of this? What credible source is reporting this? How is Hillary or Obama involved?


What has been "hammered by the msm"? The Russia Collusion story? Sure, because there have been actual indictments. We don't know all the facts but we know something is happening. We have evidence something is happening. Indictments of what? No indictments of anything related to colluding with Russians. Even the 13 Russian Bot Farm indictments can't be proven. You do know that one of these companies hired US lawyers and can't even make Mueller prosecute his own case, right?
So, you tell me what the evidence is of "something happening"


Dropped what story? The Russia Collusion story? You just said they "hammered" it, now they aren't? It's still the top story almost every day on all the news networks.
MSM changed narrative with Border story and in unison. Do this on purpose and it's pretty obvious when you step back and look.


What report? Was it illegal? Quid-pro-quo? Is there evidence?

The IG report is full of evidence. You're telling me that you don't know it is basically illegal for an FBI agent to take gifts from anyone, much less a reporter? The FBI has one office that communicates with the press. The evidence for this is specifically in the IG report. Devoted a chapter to it.


Because you didn't specify what report you are referring too. I can't look it up without a name or some idea of what it is about.


As I said in the other post Huber is a good man, but please, inform me, what is he up too.
He's taking the investigative evidence of the IG and convening Grand Juries outside of left wing, DC. If you don't even know what is actually in the IG report other than the Executive Summary, then it's hard to have an actual conversation. I'm not going to copy and paste the IG report for someone who really doesn't seem interested.


He is investigating the FBI, we know this. Is Hillary or Obama involved? We don't know. Do you know? How do you know? Do you have evidence? Has someone credible reported on this yet?
Again, you're going to have to me who is credible.


It might be, but I don't think it will be for the reason that you do. Can't discuss this unless you tell me what your reasons are, and what you think my reasons are.

 

[Rychek4]

Give me evidence that Breitbart isn't credible.

Maybe before Andrew died you had a point. But now...

"Though Marlow concedes that Breitbart made coverage decisions around protecting Trump"

Breitbart isn't credible.

 

[orangelvis]

Maybe before Andrew died you had a point. But now...

"Though Marlow concedes that Breitbart made coverage decisions around protecting Trump"

Breitbart isn't credible.

Meh. I remember that situation well. I remember Breitbart reporting exactly as he described it in this article; from their belief that the msm was trying to create a standard, (which I agree with), to having msm sites paying for accusations. Breitbart also openly stated in articles that most of the accusers left doubt of credibility except the one 14 year old. It's not like he decided to print articles a certain way without disclosing it to the reader. The whole situation with Moore was sketchy both with Moore himself and the accusers as I remember it.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...smear-pushed-by-national-review-david-french/

Breitbart is more credible than 95% of other news outlets. There are plenty of ant-trump rebubs; even in the conservative media.

 

[orangelvis]

Maybe before Andrew died you had a point. But now...

"Though Marlow concedes that Breitbart made coverage decisions around protecting Trump"

Breitbart isn't credible.

Would like to hear what you consider a credible source. Btw- not ignoring your your other posts. Getting ready to leave town for a wedding tomorrow.

 

[Rychek4]

Would like to hear what you consider a credible source. Btw- not ignoring your your other posts. Getting ready to leave town for a wedding tomorrow.

The one I linked to just above is a good source (outside of opinion pieces obviously): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-american-conservative/

As opposed to this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

 

[Rychek4]

Breitbart is more credible than 95% of other news outlets.

This is absolutely untrue and you would be hard pressed to even find confirmation bias to support it.

 

[FLaw47]

Would like to hear what you consider a credible source. Btw- not ignoring your your other posts. Getting ready to leave town for a wedding tomorrow.

Anything that mediabiasfactcheck considers to have a "high" factual rating. These are all sources that rate as having the least bias and are highly factual. If you find a biased source that still has a high factual rating, it's fine by me.

What's a source you perceive to have a bias to the right of Breitbart that you think is untrustworthy? Just curious.

 

[orangelvis]

Sorry, running out the door now. Out of town wedding. Back Sunday. Don't post from phone.