3 ms·

They have a long ways to go to earn back my trust. CNN is outright just sensational commentary posing to be news. The broadcast outlets don’t focus on commentar

They have a long ways to go to earn back my trust. CNN is outright just sensational commentary posing to be news. The broadcast outlets don’t focus on commentary, but the selective coverage and specific questions in interviews peak their obvious agenda. Then you have Fox News, who is unashamedly doing the same thing on the right. The pandering to selective political ideologies and pushing particular agendas is pervasive across the American media landscape. I don’t know if it’s better in other countries. I do think think social media gets a lot of criticism and disdain from these outlets, and sure I’m not a fan of FB or Twitter. But traditional American news media in my mind has been stirring this pot for decades, and they seem to get a pass. We talk about breaking up FB, but these American news outlets seem to get a pass.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
daniel-cussen 4y ago
The big thing about CNN is telling people politics is hopeless, and therefore not to vote. And it does this selectively, it sells this as a capability. Sells diminished voter turnout. And broadcasts weaponized racism/rapism accusations, including Inter-Continental Ballistic Rape Accusations, ICBRA's, like (I'm not sure cnn.com partook in this but still, nytimes.com did) those affecting the owner of Techcrunch, Mike Arrington, where he was literally two states away from the victim at the time of the rape (allegedly obviously, being sarcastic, but the media did NOT say allegedly, in effect claimed he was thousands of miles long--at the calf, or at the thigh, whatever, standing in Washington but penetrating in California--rather than question the bitchvictim). So even the editor of a medium-sized newspaper can get slandered in the worst possible way across continents? At that point, I just stop listening to rape accusations in the media no matter what, like you can accuse anybody, at any time, of anything, provided he has a penis[1]. Nowadays, if "they" are white. White male, basically. Just accusing white men of being white men, frankly. Mike Arrington is a white man, news at 11. And let me say something else. I will never vote for a man who has not been accused of rape in the media. If he has been accused of rape, maybe he has my vote maybe he doesn't. Probably does. If he hasn't been accused of rape on the media, he's not a threat to bad people and I will flat out not vote for him. I actually acted on that recently. José Antonio Kast, though I would have normally voted for him, I saw he had no accusations so I didn't go to vote in the Chilean Presidential Elections for him. Obviously because that in a presidential candidate that candidate had strategies to dodge or diffuse or dislodge or discourage rape accusations, nobody that well-known can possibly have a clean record. His opponent, Boric, didn't. It's the most basic form of mudslinging, rape accusations. You can always get some female confidence artist to "come forward," always, it costs like 2000 USD in Chile, if that. It's cheap, it's trivial, there's no cross-examination, victim never gets named in public, if nobody's done it it's because the candidate planned it all out for it not to happen, ie premeditated that same crime. Pretty much is a rapist for real if he's never been accused. And Kast lost the election, due to thousands of votes like mine. Every vote can break a tied election, in fact I tied an election 126 to 126, in high school. Kast lost in part because he had that suspicious clean slate. It's counter-reliable, whatever the media says, the truth is almost exactly to the opposite. [1] I still judge rape accusations made in person to me, or what I witness in person, as I see fit. "He says she says" has no weight, but in the moment, it's a totally different ball-park. I have taken suicidal levels of risk to defend women who asked for help in person, risks I've never seen anybody else take. But not for an accusation in the bitchvictim media.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  How do you feel about Joe “nothing will fundamentally change” Biden?
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Very negative opinion of president-elect Joseph Biden. Not going into politics on this site, limiting it to media coverage. Frankly with the amount of slander he had going in his favor he could rightfully be called a victor of the election--if and only if he got more than 60%. The ballots were I think--not sure as time goes on, but I think--correct, but the slander was absurd. To the point the media had many bad weeks trying to figure out what to talk about because Trump was no longer president, meaning they couldn't make 4 out of the 5 biggest daily headlines about him in varying levels of directness. Him, his past, his family, his nepotists, his administration, his legacy, his apocalyptic nuclear monarchy, his impeachment, his craziness, his uh coup I think they called it, literally ad nauseam. Couldn't read the news, it was literally "ad nauseam", to the point of total disgust, and even then I bought into the bullshit to some degree. It was so copious, so much shit, you can't keep your mind clean of all that shit any more than you can keep your shoes clean if you're surrounded by dog feces like a foot of snow. Better to do what Thomas Jefferson said and not read any news at all, ever. It's back to the point it was in in the Spanish-American War, yellow journalism, shitty rags full of slander. Not even that, that would be better than this, just blogs manipulating every reader individually, visible A/B testing in eg Financial Times ("Larger" vs. "bigger", they let me see both versions of the same headline, incompetence), generated news... Yellow bits. Yellow ones and yellow zeroes. Gray Lady? Not in the least, not gray at all. Haven't read what she says in many years, just too gross. And guess what? If you refuse to let them in to your mind, in a way they stop existing. It's weird, it's a quantum-mechanical thing, just stop reading and they sort of just die. It's like applause in a theater, one person stops clapping and then there's four more clappings, that's it, dies very rapidly.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

daniel-cussen 4y ago

The big thing about CNN is telling people politics is hopeless, and therefore not to vote. And it does this selectively, it sells this as a capability. Sells diminished voter turnout. And broadcasts weaponized racism/rapism accusations, including Inter-Continental Ballistic Rape Accusations, ICBRA's, like (I'm not sure cnn.com partook in this but still, nytimes.com did) those affecting the owner of Techcrunch, Mike Arrington, where he was literally two states away from the victim at the time of the rape (allegedly obviously, being sarcastic, but the media did NOT say allegedly, in effect claimed he was thousands of miles long--at the calf, or at the thigh, whatever, standing in Washington but penetrating in California--rather than question the bitchvictim). So even the editor of a medium-sized newspaper can get slandered in the worst possible way across continents? At that point, I just stop listening to rape accusations in the media no matter what, like you can accuse anybody, at any time, of anything, provided he has a penis[1]. Nowadays, if "they" are white. White male, basically. Just accusing white men of being white men, frankly. Mike Arrington is a white man, news at 11. And let me say something else. I will never vote for a man who has not been accused of rape in the media. If he has been accused of rape, maybe he has my vote maybe he doesn't. Probably does. If he hasn't been accused of rape on the media, he's not a threat to bad people and I will flat out not vote for him. I actually acted on that recently. José Antonio Kast, though I would have normally voted for him, I saw he had no accusations so I didn't go to vote in the Chilean Presidential Elections for him. Obviously because that in a presidential candidate that candidate had strategies to dodge or diffuse or dislodge or discourage rape accusations, nobody that well-known can possibly have a clean record. His opponent, Boric, didn't. It's the most basic form of mudslinging, rape accusations. You can always get some female confidence artist to "come forward," always, it costs like 2000 USD in Chile, if that. It's cheap, it's trivial, there's no cross-examination, victim never gets named in public, if nobody's done it it's because the candidate planned it all out for it not to happen, ie premeditated that same crime. Pretty much is a rapist for real if he's never been accused. And Kast lost the election, due to thousands of votes like mine. Every vote can break a tied election, in fact I tied an election 126 to 126, in high school. Kast lost in part because he had that suspicious clean slate. It's counter-reliable, whatever the media says, the truth is almost exactly to the opposite. [1] I still judge rape accusations made in person to me, or what I witness in person, as I see fit. "He says she says" has no weight, but in the moment, it's a totally different ball-park. I have taken suicidal levels of risk to defend women who asked for help in person, risks I've never seen anybody else take. But not for an accusation in the bitchvictim media.

selimthegrim 4y ago
How do you feel about Joe “nothing will fundamentally change” Biden?
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Very negative opinion of president-elect Joseph Biden. Not going into politics on this site, limiting it to media coverage. Frankly with the amount of slander he had going in his favor he could rightfully be called a victor of the election--if and only if he got more than 60%. The ballots were I think--not sure as time goes on, but I think--correct, but the slander was absurd. To the point the media had many bad weeks trying to figure out what to talk about because Trump was no longer president, meaning they couldn't make 4 out of the 5 biggest daily headlines about him in varying levels of directness. Him, his past, his family, his nepotists, his administration, his legacy, his apocalyptic nuclear monarchy, his impeachment, his craziness, his uh coup I think they called it, literally ad nauseam. Couldn't read the news, it was literally "ad nauseam", to the point of total disgust, and even then I bought into the bullshit to some degree. It was so copious, so much shit, you can't keep your mind clean of all that shit any more than you can keep your shoes clean if you're surrounded by dog feces like a foot of snow. Better to do what Thomas Jefferson said and not read any news at all, ever. It's back to the point it was in in the Spanish-American War, yellow journalism, shitty rags full of slander. Not even that, that would be better than this, just blogs manipulating every reader individually, visible A/B testing in eg Financial Times ("Larger" vs. "bigger", they let me see both versions of the same headline, incompetence), generated news... Yellow bits. Yellow ones and yellow zeroes. Gray Lady? Not in the least, not gray at all. Haven't read what she says in many years, just too gross. And guess what? If you refuse to let them in to your mind, in a way they stop existing. It's weird, it's a quantum-mechanical thing, just stop reading and they sort of just die. It's like applause in a theater, one person stops clapping and then there's four more clappings, that's it, dies very rapidly.