Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Now its the New York Times that doesn't understand that the Babylon Bee is SATIRE
Collapse
X
-
"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
-
Originally posted by Backup View Post
Those are delivery systems.
What news sources do you go to that lead you the conclusion that the mainstream media is “off-the-wall false”?
From my experience, sources that rag on the mainstream media are usually crazy, right-wing propaganda outlets that are not nearly as credible as the mainstream media.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Backup View Post
Those are delivery systems.
What news sources do you go to that lead you the conclusion that the mainstream media is “off-the-wall false”? From my experience, sources that rag on the mainstream media are usually crazy, right-wing propaganda outlets that are not nearly as credible as the mainstream media.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Backup View Post
Those are delivery systems.
What news sources do you go to that lead you the conclusion that the mainstream media is “off-the-wall false”? From my experience, sources that rag on the mainstream media are usually crazy, right-wing propaganda outlets that are not nearly as credible as the mainstream media.
But I have seen some of the worst cases of bad reporting and outright lies coming from sources such as the New York Times and CNN. There are several threads on this site pointing out examples of such.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
When I find a story I am interested in, I usually investigate it from various angles and sources to get to the truth as best I can. Especially in this day and age when "journalists" are nothing more than plagiarists who merely copy stories from each other and add their own spin on it. Both sides do that. Journalists are lazy today. I try to avoid the blog and popup "news" sites that are obvious shills for either the left or the right. Or at least take what they say with a grain of salt and as I said, investigate further.
But I have seen some of the worst cases of bad reporting and outright lies coming from sources such as the New York Times and CNN. There are several threads on this site pointing out examples of such.
But, they have a slew of news stories that get consolidated from fox, huffpost, salon, cnn, etc. Meaning, I can see a ton of different stories that come from different stories, and if one interests me, I can explore it deeper.
(Though, this has bitten me once or twice as I'll grab a story from the page, only to find out later it came from a source I wouldn't trust normally).
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
Yes, you dearly love to use your biased MediaBiasFactCheck site to well poison. But interestingly you got caught elsewhere, willingly using sources that your own biased MediaBiasFactCheck says are similarly biased toward the left (aka 'crazy, left-wing propaganda outlets'), and run away when that is pointed out.
I don't have any "goto" news sources. I generally just hear about something on TV (mostly local news) or social media, then go looking for more information and read all angles I can if I am interested in it. But I am a skeptical person and never take anything at face value so even if the source is a conservative site I will still check to see if what it is reporting is valid or not.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Various sources. Internet, TV, occasional actual newspaper.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
"Various sources" isn't a delivery system.
He said "various sources." Which usually means a little bit from everywhere.
It is through summation that the MSM is often conniving, always biased, offers opinion as news, and can report falsehoods in its feverish scramble to forward its agenda.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
There is nothing that keeps satire from being itself biased, or from propping up or encouraging belief in misinformation. When it does so, it becomes not merely satire but also misinformation.
E.g. an article mocking the idea the Earth goes around the sun in Galileo's time.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Ah so that is why he seems to want me to name names. carpedm9587 used to drag out MBFC all the time too.
I don't have any "goto" news sources. I generally just hear about something on TV (mostly local news) or social media, then go looking for more information and read all angles I can if I am interested in it. But I am a skeptical person and never take anything at face value so even if the source is a conservative site I will still check to see if what it is reporting is valid or not.
But it is just this sort of desire to get the other sides P.O.V. that led me to realize just how often the MSM closes ranks and refuses to cover a big story. Often the excuse that the conservative media is talking about it is even given as the justification for them to ignore it. Then, if the story continues to grow they are forced to play catch up informing their viewers/readers of what is going on before they can explain the latest development.
An example of this was how the NYT stubbornly refused to cover any of the controversies swirling around Obama's recently appointed "Green Czar," Van Jones. They refused to cover it right up until Van Jones was forced to resign, and then they had to spend a whole lot of time explaining why he resigned -- something that virtually everyone who didn't rely on the Times for their news, already knew.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Ah so that is why he seems to want me to name names. carpedm9587 used to drag out MBFC all the time too.
I don't have any "goto" news sources. I generally just hear about something on TV (mostly local news) or social media, then go looking for more information and read all angles I can if I am interested in it. But I am a skeptical person and never take anything at face value so even if the source is a conservative site I will still check to see if what it is reporting is valid or not.
Well said.
Comment
-
And let's not forget that for many of these "fact checkers" merely saying you didn't believe that Trump colluded with Putin and the Russians was more than sufficient to get you labeled as a unreliable far right wing source. More recently we saw the same thing wrt questioning whether or not the Chicom coronavirus came from eating bats.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostWould that be misinformation back then? Nobody knew for sure. Galileo failed in his attempt at offering "proof." That would fall to others.
But of course, my comment concerns how Satire can also feed into or be misinformation. So "Satire' of the sort I suggested would exist in support of the misinformation that the Earth was at the center of the solar system - so it too becomes part of the misinformation campaign wrt Galileo's discoveries. But that satire/misinformation would also be generally well received, believed, and viewed as quite comical by most people still locked into the mistaken notion of geocentrism.
My choice of that example was to keep the comment away from rabbit trails about what might be true or false today - hopefully we can all agree the Earth orbits the sun - and just explore how Satire can also be misinformation.
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
Ironically, my general starting news page tends to be Yahoo home page. (I know, yahoo).
But, they have a slew of news stories that get consolidated from fox, huffpost, salon, cnn, etc. Meaning, I can see a ton of different stories that come from different stories, and if one interests me, I can explore it deeper.
(Though, this has bitten me once or twice as I'll grab a story from the page, only to find out later it came from a source I wouldn't trust normally).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View Post
I used to start with Yahoo! because my oldest email is there, so I would see their aggregate first before checking my mail. But after they cancelled their comments on articles (which were more insightful than the articles) I just bookmarked my email without ever visiting their propaganda page. I used to see more huffpost than anything else on there.
Carry on.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
27 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Yesterday, 04:11 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
26 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 10:46 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
58 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Yesterday, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
21 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
191 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 02:59 PM
|
Comment