4 ms·

I didn't know what the OP meant about "both siding" but I feel like the biggest problem is the lack of journalism, the lack of "report the facts."instead it is

I didn't know what the OP meant about "both siding" but I feel like the biggest problem is the lack of journalism, the lack of "report the facts."instead it is about supporting a particular narrative, about reporting only the facts that lend to that narrative, even going so far as to manufacturer them. As far as local newspapers, they just lost the ad war.

xocnad 2y ago
Can you provide some specific examples that inform your viewpoint?
- sincerecook 2y ago
  Fiery but mostly peaceful protests, Biden's dementia is actually just a speech issue, Russia hacked our brains, peaceful Muslims (after a massacre), etc, etc.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Isn't that just journalists not supporting your personal narrative? That isn't the measure of truth (and neither is mine).
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Biden having dementia isn't a personal narrative, it's a matter of fact that was clearly visible for years but most US based journalists refused to report on. The position you're staking out here is called postmodernism, and is based on the idea that there is no objective truth. There is only my truth and your truth. This is a highly ideological and contentious position, in fact to people who don't subscribe to postmodernism, postmodernism is an objectively untrue belief system. Biden shows all the symptoms of being in a state of advanced dementia. People who work with him say he's only cogent and capable of handling presidential business for a few hours a day at best, and that's probably an exaggeration. It is objectively true that he has dementia by the definitions of those words. When journalists refused to report that or pretended the problems were caused by other things, they weren't merely preferencing personal narratives of equal value to any other narrative, they were explicitly manipulating their readers in order to achieve their ideological goals via subterfuge. Which is why nobody rational trusts them anymore.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Spare me the postmodernism lecture and don't try to put me in your preconceived box. There is lots of ground between 'there is no objective reality' and assuming that you, mike_hearn, have some special access to to the Truth. If someone could have such special access, how do you know it's you and not me? It's not that voice saying you are right - everyone has it; it's part perceptual mechanism and part ego; why is your voice superior to mine? And we also know that political movements play to that voice, manipulate it, and then encourage it - 'you and I know the truth'. And aren't you the one just repeating an ideology? All you say I have heard many times as dogma of the current right-wing movement. And as you offer nothing else but insistence on it, is there any more to these claims? Where do you think for yourself and depart from it? What is your reasoning beyond 'nobody rational' would disagree with the movement - a strong signal of reason-by-mass-psychology. The essence of reason is another voice, which connects our intellect and knows, through experience and training, that the first voice is not trustworthy. It doesn't say, 'nobody rational would disagree with me'; it says, 'my perception and knowledge are limited and I need to base my beliefs on much more'. The core of reason and rational thought is resolving a dilemma: how do we find truth if our perceptions and beliefs are unreliable? What's worked very well and is widely accepted is to use something outside ourselves: publicly verifiable fact. > objectively untrue > nobody rational Those words aren't evidence, they are just signals that it's a dogma. A rational discussion would bring in evidence, and talk about its strengths and weaknesses, and talk about the strengths and weaknesses in your ideas. It would include curiosity about others' ideas. I'm sure you have plenty of good ideas (and so do I), but it's impossible to explore anything if you won't. > journalists refused to report that I saw plenty of reporting about his age-related problems, for example in the New York Times and Fox News. Both got a lot of heat for it.
        mike_hearn 2y ago
        I said it's "a matter of fact that was clearly visible for years" which is the opposite of claiming to have special knowledge, so why the straw man? No special knowledge is needed to know that this claim is objectively true, you can just watch videos of him and see it for yourself. Why are you expecting me to cite evidence for something so widely accepted his own party didn't let him run for President again? If you really cannot see what everyone else can see - even his own party - then I'm not going to spend time on trying to convince you. As for seeing stuff in Fox News, I don't think that particular organization is what the people who started this thread were thinking of.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  Refusing to report gunfire at Trump rally and refusing to call it an assassination attempt. Instead it was "loud noises heard". https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/13/media-reaction-to-trump-assassination-attempt-n2641833 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/13/media-rea...
  - mmooss 2y ago
    That's a bizarre claim on your part. It was called an assassination attempt everywhere I looked; it was everywhere in the news.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      It will only sound bizarre if you didn't read ivewonyoung's link, which provides specific examples of big news outlets doing exactly what was claimed. Maybe everywhere you looked didn't do that, but if so you weren't looking at NBC, MSNBC, the Washington Post or CNN at the time of the attack. The link supplies screenshots of their reporting in all cases.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        I read lots of news from many, many sources, including those. Nobody had a problem calling it an assassination attempt once there was evidence of that that's what it was. There are many more likely, alternative explanations for any delay. Of course they shouldn't conclude anything about anything without evidence; they shouldn't say 'assassination' as soon as someone hears a loud bang. In fact, many report Trump was hit by a bullet when, last I knew, we had no evidence that it wasn't shrapnel that cut him (but I haven't really kept up with new developments).
        mike_hearn 2y ago
        Come on, it was a political rally at which shots rang out and someone behind Trump was killed on the spot by a bullet, with the shooter being killed on the rooftops seconds later by snipers and the Secret Service evacuating a former President whilst he yelled "fight fight fight". You don't need extensive investigative journalism to work out what happened there, and indeed most other news outlets reported it correctly immediately. It was only the usual suspects who had trouble writing informative headlines. There is no excusing that behavior: they didn't want to report it correctly as an assassination attempt because they have come to exist purely to fight ideological war against the Republicans and everything they say or do is passed through a "does this hurt Trump" filter first. So whilst a man bled out on the stalls they were reporting it as if the cause of the events were a great mystery. Also notice how totally disinterested they've been in the story of the shooter(s). We can infer a lot about why.

xocnad 2y ago

Can you provide some specific examples that inform your viewpoint?

sincerecook 2y ago
Fiery but mostly peaceful protests, Biden's dementia is actually just a speech issue, Russia hacked our brains, peaceful Muslims (after a massacre), etc, etc.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Isn't that just journalists not supporting your personal narrative? That isn't the measure of truth (and neither is mine).
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Biden having dementia isn't a personal narrative, it's a matter of fact that was clearly visible for years but most US based journalists refused to report on. The position you're staking out here is called postmodernism, and is based on the idea that there is no objective truth. There is only my truth and your truth. This is a highly ideological and contentious position, in fact to people who don't subscribe to postmodernism, postmodernism is an objectively untrue belief system. Biden shows all the symptoms of being in a state of advanced dementia. People who work with him say he's only cogent and capable of handling presidential business for a few hours a day at best, and that's probably an exaggeration. It is objectively true that he has dementia by the definitions of those words. When journalists refused to report that or pretended the problems were caused by other things, they weren't merely preferencing personal narratives of equal value to any other narrative, they were explicitly manipulating their readers in order to achieve their ideological goals via subterfuge. Which is why nobody rational trusts them anymore.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Spare me the postmodernism lecture and don't try to put me in your preconceived box. There is lots of ground between 'there is no objective reality' and assuming that you, mike_hearn, have some special access to to the Truth. If someone could have such special access, how do you know it's you and not me? It's not that voice saying you are right - everyone has it; it's part perceptual mechanism and part ego; why is your voice superior to mine? And we also know that political movements play to that voice, manipulate it, and then encourage it - 'you and I know the truth'. And aren't you the one just repeating an ideology? All you say I have heard many times as dogma of the current right-wing movement. And as you offer nothing else but insistence on it, is there any more to these claims? Where do you think for yourself and depart from it? What is your reasoning beyond 'nobody rational' would disagree with the movement - a strong signal of reason-by-mass-psychology. The essence of reason is another voice, which connects our intellect and knows, through experience and training, that the first voice is not trustworthy. It doesn't say, 'nobody rational would disagree with me'; it says, 'my perception and knowledge are limited and I need to base my beliefs on much more'. The core of reason and rational thought is resolving a dilemma: how do we find truth if our perceptions and beliefs are unreliable? What's worked very well and is widely accepted is to use something outside ourselves: publicly verifiable fact. > objectively untrue > nobody rational Those words aren't evidence, they are just signals that it's a dogma. A rational discussion would bring in evidence, and talk about its strengths and weaknesses, and talk about the strengths and weaknesses in your ideas. It would include curiosity about others' ideas. I'm sure you have plenty of good ideas (and so do I), but it's impossible to explore anything if you won't. > journalists refused to report that I saw plenty of reporting about his age-related problems, for example in the New York Times and Fox News. Both got a lot of heat for it.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        I said it's "a matter of fact that was clearly visible for years" which is the opposite of claiming to have special knowledge, so why the straw man? No special knowledge is needed to know that this claim is objectively true, you can just watch videos of him and see it for yourself. Why are you expecting me to cite evidence for something so widely accepted his own party didn't let him run for President again? If you really cannot see what everyone else can see - even his own party - then I'm not going to spend time on trying to convince you. As for seeing stuff in Fox News, I don't think that particular organization is what the people who started this thread were thinking of.
ivewonyoung 2y ago
Refusing to report gunfire at Trump rally and refusing to call it an assassination attempt. Instead it was "loud noises heard". https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/13/media-reaction-to-trump-assassination-attempt-n2641833 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/13/media-rea...
- mmooss 2y ago
  That's a bizarre claim on your part. It was called an assassination attempt everywhere I looked; it was everywhere in the news.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    It will only sound bizarre if you didn't read ivewonyoung's link, which provides specific examples of big news outlets doing exactly what was claimed. Maybe everywhere you looked didn't do that, but if so you weren't looking at NBC, MSNBC, the Washington Post or CNN at the time of the attack. The link supplies screenshots of their reporting in all cases.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      I read lots of news from many, many sources, including those. Nobody had a problem calling it an assassination attempt once there was evidence of that that's what it was. There are many more likely, alternative explanations for any delay. Of course they shouldn't conclude anything about anything without evidence; they shouldn't say 'assassination' as soon as someone hears a loud bang. In fact, many report Trump was hit by a bullet when, last I knew, we had no evidence that it wasn't shrapnel that cut him (but I haven't really kept up with new developments).
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        Come on, it was a political rally at which shots rang out and someone behind Trump was killed on the spot by a bullet, with the shooter being killed on the rooftops seconds later by snipers and the Secret Service evacuating a former President whilst he yelled "fight fight fight". You don't need extensive investigative journalism to work out what happened there, and indeed most other news outlets reported it correctly immediately. It was only the usual suspects who had trouble writing informative headlines. There is no excusing that behavior: they didn't want to report it correctly as an assassination attempt because they have come to exist purely to fight ideological war against the Republicans and everything they say or do is passed through a "does this hurt Trump" filter first. So whilst a man bled out on the stalls they were reporting it as if the cause of the events were a great mystery. Also notice how totally disinterested they've been in the story of the shooter(s). We can infer a lot about why.