Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Translation of the above: I am going to spout off NPC talking points and choose to remain ignorant.
OP's post is about needing alternative media due to 'exaggeration' 'bias' etc.
My post is stating we don't need additional media, For every source that exaggerates or uses click-bait to get a point across we have 5 others that report FACTUAL news; So exactly how is my post an "NPC talking point"? Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension.
We need a new media that doesn't frame stories through a lens of making its audience affirmed.
Media sources are unofficially aligned with parties. The NY Times and Fox News slant and cherry pick narratives just the same. Both are dishonest, exaggerate, and tell selective truths.
Politicians do not need to fear media reporting like they use to, because they know their media will largely protect them and their voter base will largely ignore the opposition media, because it gives them a message that they don't want to hear.
I'd add that the media uses obvious double standards. The media sensationalizes. Often these sensational double standards creates animosity between groups of Americans.
It's far from new, but the nearest thing you got to what you want is NPR. National Public Radio.
OP's post is about needing alternative media due to 'exaggeration' 'bias' etc.
My post is stating we don't need additional media, For every source that exaggerates or uses click-bait to get a point across we have 5 others that report FACTUAL news; So exactly how is my post an "NPC talking point"? Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension.
YOU'RE the one who doesn't comprehend. "Factual" isn't the only issue. The issue is which facts news companies report, and what spin they put on those facts. Was there a lack of diversity in the tv show "Girls," which was the subject of a particularly ridiculous NPR story that I heard years ago? I guess so. Is that something that I need to know about/care about? I don't think so. Was there a "Black Wall Street" massacre in Tulsa, Oklahoma a hundred years ago? Yes. Does that mean it would have been an atrocity for Donald Trump to make a speech there last summer, as ABC's evening news cast tried to tell me? I don't think so. These things are indicative of a left-wing (I would argue far-left-wing) mindset, whether they're based on fact or not.
YOU'RE the one who doesn't comprehend. "Factual" isn't the only issue. The issue is which facts news companies report, and what spin they put on those facts. Was there a lack of diversity in the tv show "Girls," which was the subject of a particularly ridiculous NPR story that I heard years ago? I guess so. Is that something that I need to know about/care about? I don't think so. Was there a "Black Wall Street" massacre in Tulsa, Oklahoma a hundred years ago? Yes. Does that mean it would have been an atrocity for Donald Trump to make a speech there last summer, as ABC's evening news cast tried to tell me? I don't think so. These things are indicative of a left-wing (I would argue far-left-wing) mindset, whether they're based on fact or not.
At this point its splitting hairs, Its saying "Be factual...but not too factual where it would thread on my partisan views" If the fact is relevant to the story at hand why not include it? Also the Black Wall Street mention in many of the articles served to educate the reader on Tulsa's history and give insight as to why there were protests over Trumps speech given that it is still a delicate subject to many ie; https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...eteenth-2020-6
Seems like right-wingers will never be satisfied with any media outlet that doesn't regurgitate conspiracies, If pointing out a part of history is "far left" then what do you call Trump supporters doing the equivalent of covering their ears and yelling "lalala fake news lalalal" to every piece of evidence presented in support of Biden winning the presidency?
At this point its splitting hairs, Its saying "Be factual...but not too factual where it would thread on my partisan views" If the fact is relevant to the story at hand why not include it? Also the Black Wall Street mention in many of the articles served to educate the reader on Tulsa's history and give insight as to why there were protests over Trumps speech given that it is still a delicate subject to many ie; https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...eteenth-2020-6
Seems like right-wingers will never be satisfied with any media outlet that doesn't regurgitate conspiracies, If pointing out a part of history is "far left" then what do you call Trump supporters doing the equivalent of covering their ears and yelling "lalala fake news lalalal" to every piece of evidence presented in support of Biden winning the presidency?
No, they stormed our cities instead. Burning down businesses and homes of hard working Americans. Pulling innocent citizens out of their cars and beating them while Democratic leaders either looked away or outright praised them. All the while chanting 'Not My President' since the very day he won the 2016 election. I would however not label their behavior 'infantile', I would label it vicious and criminal.
Why don't you try reading the link? The author is a progressive.
I did read the article, So because he's a progressive i have to agree? Huh?
I disagree with people who share the same political views with me, All the time.
We need a new media that doesn't frame stories through a lens of making its audience affirmed.
Media sources are unofficially aligned with parties. The NY Times and Fox News slant and cherry pick narratives just the same. Both are dishonest, exaggerate, and tell selective truths.
Politicians do not need to fear media reporting like they use to, because they know their media will largely protect them and their voter base will largely ignore the opposition media, because it gives them a message that they don't want to hear.
I'd add that the media uses obvious double standards. The media sensationalizes. Often these sensational double standards creates animosity between groups of Americans.
The media has done this for years. The problem was most people were not "woke" to the media bias. The bias either wasn't there or wasn't blatantly seen. This changed when Fox became more and more right-biased in the 2000s. Remember, CNN wasn't that left until the Obama days. I mean I was somewhat right back then and I still thought CNN reporting was somewhat fair. Especially with the 2013 re-launch of Crossfire. Man I miss that, but sadly we are far too divided to do a show like that now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
