8 ms·

They specifically said the protests were fake and the media was lying. Let's not beat around the bush in terms of language they used. Once again, we have a co

They specifically said the protests were fake and the media was lying. Let's not beat around the bush in terms of language they used. Once again, we have a company choosing not to do business with another company and allowing it to advertise on its property. Free market at work, move along.

mardifoufs 6y ago
I'm pretty sure that's Zerohedge, and as I said Zerohedge is full of lunatics that was already kicked off the ad network anyways. The Federalist didn't say the protests are fake, i think. If anything, there seems to be tons of articles about the protests and how they show the "hypocrisy of the left" when it comes to the coronovirus lockdowns. That implies that they aren't fake, and I can't find anything on the Federalist arguing anything like that.
- supercanuck 6y ago
  Here you go: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-you-about-everything-including-the-riots/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-...
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    Would you mind pointing out where the lie(s) are in the article? I just skimmed it and even though there's an obvious bias I didn't notice anything that seemed blatantly untrue edit: To expand on that, a statement like "[The media] lied about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia in 2016." is going to be controversial. However because "the media" is such a big umbrella, I'm sure you could find a factually untrue article published about the collusion. It's a bit tautological: if one media source publishes an article saying collusion happened, and another publishes an article saying that collusion didn't happen, one of them has to be wrong. You can decide that without determining whether or not collusion actually happened.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - supercanuck 6y ago
      I'm curious to know what would change your mind? The word lying means an intent to deceive, not just to state something falsely. Being wrong and stating a falsehood vs lying are very different. So maybe try to be your own devil's advocate, and see if you could see how The Federalist could be accused of lying and be unwelcome on someone else' platform.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        If the media were simply repeatedly mistaken, with no bias or intent to deceive, their errors would tend to happen in both directions. The Federalist cited quite a few falsehoods that favored the left. Perhaps you could cite some that favored the right? Edit: Excluding the few right-wing media outlets, because it's quite obvious to everyone that The Federalist wasn't talking about them here.
        ihumanable 6y ago
        Here's Fox News photoshopping coverage about CHAZ, they have had to issue an apology over it https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-... Someone had to open the images in photoshop, alter them, and then upload them to a website. This isn't a simple lie of omission or a mistake, this is manufactured content to push a right-wing narrative. Fox News consistently pushed the right-wing line that Coronavirus is a hoax until they were threatened with a lawsuit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA While they were publicly telling their viewers that the virus was a hoax, internally they were implementing remote work and disease control. Here's a giant list of the ways they've supported conservative political goals while actively working against the left, with citations and source material in the footnotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies
ALittleLight 6y ago
People are perfectly free to comment on or criticize relationships or lack of relationships occurring within the "free market". Google's dominant position in the online advertising industry is allowing them to influence political opinions and they are doing so in favor of mainstream media. That seems worth discussing to me.
- supercanuck 6y ago
  People can choose to take their advertising business to Facebook who is choosing not to censor content.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  They're actually trying to use their monopoly to control U.S. elections. This is far worse than any monopolist has ever been accused of in the past: this is not going to help their case if they're actually facing a forced AT&T-style break-up.

mardifoufs 6y ago

I'm pretty sure that's Zerohedge, and as I said Zerohedge is full of lunatics that was already kicked off the ad network anyways. The Federalist didn't say the protests are fake, i think. If anything, there seems to be tons of articles about the protests and how they show the "hypocrisy of the left" when it comes to the coronovirus lockdowns. That implies that they aren't fake, and I can't find anything on the Federalist arguing anything like that.

supercanuck 6y ago
Here you go: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-you-about-everything-including-the-riots/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/03/the-media-are-lying-to-...
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Would you mind pointing out where the lie(s) are in the article? I just skimmed it and even though there's an obvious bias I didn't notice anything that seemed blatantly untrue edit: To expand on that, a statement like "[The media] lied about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia in 2016." is going to be controversial. However because "the media" is such a big umbrella, I'm sure you could find a factually untrue article published about the collusion. It's a bit tautological: if one media source publishes an article saying collusion happened, and another publishes an article saying that collusion didn't happen, one of them has to be wrong. You can decide that without determining whether or not collusion actually happened.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - supercanuck 6y ago
    I'm curious to know what would change your mind? The word lying means an intent to deceive, not just to state something falsely. Being wrong and stating a falsehood vs lying are very different. So maybe try to be your own devil's advocate, and see if you could see how The Federalist could be accused of lying and be unwelcome on someone else' platform.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      If the media were simply repeatedly mistaken, with no bias or intent to deceive, their errors would tend to happen in both directions. The Federalist cited quite a few falsehoods that favored the left. Perhaps you could cite some that favored the right? Edit: Excluding the few right-wing media outlets, because it's quite obvious to everyone that The Federalist wasn't talking about them here.
      - ihumanable 6y ago
        Here's Fox News photoshopping coverage about CHAZ, they have had to issue an apology over it https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-... Someone had to open the images in photoshop, alter them, and then upload them to a website. This isn't a simple lie of omission or a mistake, this is manufactured content to push a right-wing narrative. Fox News consistently pushed the right-wing line that Coronavirus is a hoax until they were threatened with a lawsuit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKbwDf51bA While they were publicly telling their viewers that the virus was a hoax, internally they were implementing remote work and disease control. Here's a giant list of the ways they've supported conservative political goals while actively working against the left, with citations and source material in the footnotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies

ALittleLight 6y ago

People are perfectly free to comment on or criticize relationships or lack of relationships occurring within the "free market". Google's dominant position in the online advertising industry is allowing them to influence political opinions and they are doing so in favor of mainstream media. That seems worth discussing to me.

supercanuck 6y ago
People can choose to take their advertising business to Facebook who is choosing not to censor content.
commandlinefan 6y ago
They're actually trying to use their monopoly to control U.S. elections. This is far worse than any monopolist has ever been accused of in the past: this is not going to help their case if they're actually facing a forced AT&T-style break-up.