A similar thing happened in UK after the Brexit vote...a lot of people (previously silent) started to shout at people to "go back to their own country", thinking the government was now on their side.
Well to be fair it was reasonable to conclude that given the government was implementing a "hostile environment". That resulted in, among other things, detaining and/or deporting a number of the 'Windrush' generation who were legally entitled to be here. The backlash from that has, I think, convinced the government that most people in the UK don't want a hostile environment - even for those concerned about the impact of immigration most still want individuals to be treated with fairness and decency. The new home secretary, Sajid Javid, is now taking that line.
Sean Hannity, because he's Trump's bed time phone call buddy, and Sebastian Gorka, because he's foreign guy with Nazi views on Fox News, have left for Singapore for the North Korea meeting.
Is this real life? Methinks it's a sick joke. State TV propaganda is on scene people. What a joke.
Sean Hannity, because he's Trump's bed time phone call buddy, and Sebastian Gorka, because he's foreign guy with Nazi views on Fox News, have left for Singapore for the North Korea meeting.
Is this real life? Methinks it's a sick joke. State TV propaganda is on scene people. What a joke.
They are going to Singapore to cover the event. There is nothing odd about that.
Cover the event? Hannity and Gorka?
Hannity isnt a journalist. He'll tell you he's not, he's an "opinion journalist" meaning he cherry picks facts from right wing think tanks and spins everything no matter how far he has to stretch it into "Republican good; Democrat bad". He not a guy who "covers" anything. He gives talking points and spins other peoples stories, he doesn't "cover news" or "leave the studio" .
Gorka is more of the same with a Hungarian accent and Hungarian nazi linked party ties and a fake degree. Neither is credible at all. Much less on international politics or North Korea.
Gorka is more of the same with a Hungarian accent and Hungarian nazi linked party ties and a fake degree. Neither is credible at all. Much less on international politics or North Korea.
You may not think they're credible, but plenty of people do. I must admit I can't see anything odd about them wanting to be close to such a big story even if they are not journalists in the traditional sense.
Now here is the ironic part. The newspaper pulled this Obit, but in doing so, made it viral. If they left it as is, no one outside of Minnesota would probably have seen it and the siblings still get the last laugh.
~
Also hilariously, on a phone call to Trudeau, Trump supported the evidence that Canada was a national security risk because we burnt down the White House in the war of 1812. Canada wasn't a country then, just a small British Territory protecting itself from a U.S. invoked war.
Can the G7 meeting happen already, I already bought popcorn.
There need to be more honest obituaries like this one. I am reminded of a documentary (that should be on Youtube) called "Just Melvin" which documents the systematic sexual abuse a man perpetrated on his children and step-children over decades. At his burial, eventually the bullshit the preacher is spilling gets cut through by his daughters just flat-out telling everyone what he was (daughters whose lives he completely destroyed).
Goodbye Liberals!! Hello either Ford or NDP... too close to call but I’ll take Trump lite or socialist over the corruption that we got any day which is saying a lot.
You may not think they're credible, but plenty of people do. I must admit I can't see anything odd about them wanting to be close to such a big story even if they are not journalists in the traditional sense.
That's the problem. They pretend to be journalists when it suits them, and get upset and pretend not to be journalists when it suits them.
They complain and try to delegitimize the media but they are the media and they are the only media Trump endorses. So these days, Fox News is state TV. Trump refuses to appear on any channel but Fox where he faces softball questions like "how hard is it being so successful despite democrats unprecedented obstruction? “
They want it both ways. Their main mission seems to be to spread misinformation to elderly people who watch fox news on 24/7. People in this bubble may not realize that they are being lied to. The opinions they get on the news channel are all tilted on direction. The "facts" they support are opinions backed up by cherry picking data to support their opinion. No eagles knelt last year yet fox found some footage of eagles kneeling in prayer and used that to justify Trumps disinviting the team.
Fox does not report the news, it works backwards from prepared talking points supporting an extremist right wing agenda. And Hannity is the top agent of that.
What events has Hannity ever covered before? Where was Hannity when the historic multinational Iran deal was reached? Not there huh? Where was Hannity when the Supreme Court issued their historic ruling on gay marriage? Where was Hannity when Puerto Rico was devasted by Hurricanes?
He's not a news reporter who goes on location to faithfully report the news. He's a news interpreter who tells people how to think using opinion and false evidence.
The only reason he's going the Korea summit is to spread propaganda. He's the Joseph Goebbels to Trump's Hitler.
Hannity is the minister of propaganda. They literally call each other every night to make sure to get their talking points straight. The event hasn't happened yet and Hannity already has a script written about how Trump masterfully performed.
He's not a reporter who covers stories. He's a highly paid opinion propagandist news interpreter.
The very first EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) entered production of electricity in China.
It benefited from experience acquired on the Finnish and French models, both being late and overbudget and while started earlier will enter production later.
As of today, the EPR has been bought, beyond its home market (France) by Finland, China, UK and India. At 1.600MWatts per hour max they're the most powerful nuclear reactors on earth, even more so than the Chernobyl family.
You may not think they're credible, but plenty of people do. I must admit I can't see anything odd about them wanting to be close to such a big story even if they are not journalists in the traditional sense.
That's the problem. They pretend to be journalists when it suits them, and get upset and pretend not to be journalists when it suits them.
I'm not suggesting they give a fair and balanced picture of the news or work in the way a traditional journalist would, but I still can't see why it's so offensive for them to go there. Would they really be likely to give a more balanced picture if they stayed at home to do their reports and commentary?
As you say they are clearly partisan and the choice of how they cover events will reflect that. That means they are far more likely to want to be close to events in which Trump is a major participant - from their perspective I can certainly see why they would want to go to Singapore. Obviously you don't share their perspective and that's fine, but I don't really see why you should be surprised or disappointed if they act differently from the way you would.
I don't see how you could call Fox any worse than any other mainstream media outlet, really. Calling the President, having legally questionable joint fundraisers with the DNC, all the same really.
I don't even like Fox, but it amuses me to no end how they will get heat for what is general practice among their less right of center peers. Agendas and prepared talking points? Like when FBI agents with anti Trump animus are leaking to the media by proxy with an explicitly stated agenda? No agenda or prepared talking points in that reporting? But I digress...
So the former 2nd in command of the FBI is demanding immunity, else he will plead the 5th and refuse to testify. I am sure this is indicative of absolutely nothing wrong having happened, at all.
The only reason he's going the Korea summit is to spread propaganda. He's the Joseph Goebbels to Trump's Hitler.
This type of hyperbolic demonization of people with whom you disagree ultimately makes only *you* look bad, not them.
I was comparing him to a Minister of Propaganda. What other one is there that people know about? And considering propaganda is Hannity's job, what's that say about him?
Baghdad Bob is the only Minister of Propaganda I can think of but far fewer people know who you are talking about these days as his moment of relevance was pretty short lived.
I don't see how you could call Fox any worse than any other mainstream media outlet, really. Calling the President, having legally questionable joint fundraisers with the DNC, all the same really.
I don't even like Fox, but it amuses me to no end how they will get heat for what is general practice among their less right of center peers. Agendas and prepared talking points? Like when FBI agents with anti Trump animus are leaking to the media by proxy with an explicitly stated agenda? No agenda or prepared talking points in that reporting? But I digress...
So the former 2nd in command of the FBI is demanding immunity, else he will plead the 5th and refuse to testify. I am sure this is indicative of absolutely nothing wrong having happened, at all.
Fox explicitly supports one view. It gets talking points out to it's anchors. It lets their "opinion journalists" take up hours of screen time with one or two hosts going on air to tell you how to think about whatever talking points they have. Fox massages all news to fit their point of view and worse than that they don't report real news when they don't feel like it.
The other networks don't do this. Other mainstream outlets have anchors with personal biases sure but that's personal bias, not coordinated. directed. Sure the network boss at these other places says "ok lets cover this this way" or "that's not a story we cover" which influences what people see they don't give out talking points. They don't have a particular coordinated view.
I can see how you or others might view them the same but the link to me isn't there. It is only there if you stretch.
What saying "all networks are the same" means in Foxes case is that you are excusing or giving Fox a license to take the rules of the game and totally rig the game and cheat because "everybody does it". It's like justifying murdering someone because they flipped you off. Maybe a bad analogy but I mean if someone does something wrong, you use that as a pretext to do something way worse.
FBI agents and whatever, that's not coordinated by the mainstream media that's John FBI agent's agenda. Fox literally shapes the news in what it reports, how it reports, and who it has on to support their talking points. Propaganda channel. Older people that leave it on, same type of people that vote and are getting ripped off and stuff by telemarketers are particularly susceptible to the programming and fear mongering that goes on this network.
@WarChiefZeke I don't like ANY major news station. But Fox really does stand out when its comes to intentional misinformation. *Disclaimer: My experience is solely with American stations. I cannot comment on the practices in other countries.
I was comparing him to a Minister of Propaganda. What other one is there that people know about? And considering propaganda is Hannity's job, what's that say about him?
Baghdad Bob is the only Minister of Propaganda I can think of but far fewer people know who you are talking about these days as his moment of relevance was pretty short lived.
Despite the fact that Hannity isn't the Minister of anything, I can see where you were going with it. Calling one's opponents "nazis" is a tactic typically used by those who have run out of legitimate arguments. That assessment does not normally apply to you, hence my suggestion.
Hannity is a "media personality", definitely not a "journalist". The journalists are the ones running around off-camera and/or behind the scenes compiling the information he summarizes in his editorial pieces. Make no mistake about it--if Hannity is on the screen then you are seeing a video op-ed, not hard journalism (even though, technically op-ed is a subset of journalism).
@WarChiefZeke I don't like ANY major news station. But Fox really does stand out when its comes to intentional misinformation. *Disclaimer: My experience is solely with American stations. I cannot comment on the practices in other countries.
I would say they are as bad as CNN, both of whom are worse than ABC and MSNBC.
I say that because I am sure examples of completely intentional misrepresentations of truth by FOX exist, just as they do for CNN. I can't, at least off the top of my head, cite examples of such for the others.
@WarChiefZeke I don't like ANY major news station. But Fox really does stand out when its comes to intentional misinformation. *Disclaimer: My experience is solely with American stations. I cannot comment on the practices in other countries.
I would say they are as bad as CNN, both of whom are worse than ABC and MSNBC.
I say that because I am sure examples of completely intentional misrepresentstions of truth by FOX exist, just as they do for CNN. I can't, at least off the top of my head, cite examples of such for the others.
CNN I think TRIES, but they can't keep their bias from bleeding through. FOX feels like it was DESIGNED to mislead people.
I find CNN grating ("So, do you think the president is obstructing justice?" "Oh, absolutely, Wolf"), but I have noticed that they make a habit of bringing conservative figures and pundits to talk on their show. Often, the conservative even gets the last word. Fox very rarely has liberals speakers, they tend to get shouted down, and the conservative speaker gets the last word.
I remember seeing a segment on Fox news where the anchor was complaining about Jonathan Stewart taking a quote out of context or some such, then followed it up by saying, of Jonathan Stewart, "I'd like to turn him into pudding."
I have to wonder if that guy ever got fired. Announcing your desire to physically assault your political enemies sounds like the sort of thing that would get you kicked off of the air.
@WarChiefZeke I don't like ANY major news station. But Fox really does stand out when its comes to intentional misinformation. *Disclaimer: My experience is solely with American stations. I cannot comment on the practices in other countries.
I would say they are as bad as CNN, both of whom are worse than ABC and MSNBC.
I say that because I am sure examples of completely intentional misrepresentstions of truth by FOX exist, just as they do for CNN. I can't, at least off the top of my head, cite examples of such for the others.
CNN I think TRIES, but they can't keep their bias from bleeding through. FOX feels like it was DESIGNED to mislead people.
Maybe you have a different view on it, but to me there is absolutely no way they didn't edit this clip intentionally, and there was no honest attempt at truth at all.
To me though this is irrelevant, old media deception tactics (like all the shady DNC stuff of 2016 really) that won't work in the modern age when the record can be corrected instantaneously. I only wonder how much and how often this sort of thing was gotten away with in the pre-digital age.
Nowadays, the media doesn't need to lie about facts so much as we gravitate into alternative media bubbles that have such little overlap that we can look at the same set of facts and arrive at wildly different conclusions based on the assumptions we bring to the table. If one media bubble doesn't report on it, did it ever really happen or is it fake news propaganda?
@WarChiefZeke I don't like ANY major news station. But Fox really does stand out when its comes to intentional misinformation. *Disclaimer: My experience is solely with American stations. I cannot comment on the practices in other countries.
I would say they are as bad as CNN, both of whom are worse than ABC and MSNBC.
I say that because I am sure examples of completely intentional misrepresentstions of truth by FOX exist, just as they do for CNN. I can't, at least off the top of my head, cite examples of such for the others.
CNN I think TRIES, but they can't keep their bias from bleeding through. FOX feels like it was DESIGNED to mislead people.
That's because it WAS designed to do so. Explicitly. And most of the people in charge of making that way would absolutely admit to it in private conversation off the record. Roger Ailes made FOX News to make sure Watergate never happened to another Republican President. Lo and behold, we now see the fruits of his wildly successful labor.
Example Quote from the article: "One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect. "
What's interesting about this is that after the Kaiser abdicates rule, Germany's real problems start because the seeds had already been planted.
What's interesting about this is that after the Kaiser abdicates rule, Germany's real problems start because the seeds had already been planted.
Are you sure the real problems didn't start until Germany was crushed in WW1 and then shackled with the Treaty of Versailles for the next 20 years? That may have had more to do with it than a figurehead monarch and his abdication. The military ran Germany until after WW1 not the Kaiser. The same military rule is what led Japan into WW2, not the Emperor.
Maybe you have a different view on it, but to me there is absolutely no way they didn't edit this clip intentionally, and there was no honest attempt at truth at all.
Nowadays, the media doesn't need to lie about facts so much as we gravitate into alternative media bubbles that have such little overlap that we can look at the same set of facts and arrive at wildly different conclusions based on the assumptions we bring to the table. If one media bubble doesn't report on it, did it ever really happen or is it fake news propaganda?
I dont think cherry picking a particular example of what you consider bad journalism, and then using it (and it alone) as an example of how bad the journalism at CNN is, writ large, is terribly persuasive. That's just my opinion.
CNN is incredibly biased. That's undeniably true. It's decided to put itself as a liberal counterbalance to the administration, maybe more so than any network (although I'd argue that the only real difference is that CNN being a 24/7 new channel just means it gets to do it more often. The Late show with Colbert is an example of other networks trying to do the same thing in a more limited fashion).
Regardless, there have been evaluations done that tend to show CNN is far more likely provide truthful information than Fox. I'll include the few I'm familiar with below.
The G7 Summit, which IMO is more important, was scheduled a good year in advance and so Trump (or at least his team) should have known that it would cut into his planning time. He also cancelled the Kim meeting, what, less than a month ago and could have planned a meeting much further down the road so no one would be scrambling at the last minute like what is happening now.
Pence may end up coming to Canada instead which would be an insult IMO. Pence isn't the one signing the executive orders regarding tariff's on "national security" reasons. (which he is allegedly planning on doing to German Automakers. Maybe he'll tell Merkle, "well you guys did start WW2 you know.")
~~
And anyone who likes following elections (jjstraka, I am looking at you) here is a site to follow the Ontario Election. Polls close at 9 p.m. so that is when the results will start to come in and two or three polls are staying open late due to technical difficulties. Here is a cheat sheet of what each main party said they'll do if elected but I wouldn't put too much weight in it as all three are know to promise and not deliver properly.
I voted today and I hope @TakisMegas and @elminster and any other Ontario dwelling residents did as well. I voted PC, but I am really, really hoping for a NDP minority government. Horwath is the most likable leader of the three main parties and I believe they the less likely to fall into corruption. However, they will overspend, increasing Ontario's debt more and dig a bigger whole for the next generation. A minority should keep them in check, but I doubt the Liberals (or Green or Other parties) will get enough seats to do so. The Liberals need 8 to hold onto official party status. Here is hoping they get 0.
I also do not like the new "voting machine" we had to insert our ballot into. It looked like a shredder. I also do not mind electronic counts as long as they are backed up by individual ones. I am deathly afraid some votes will not get counted if the X is in the wrong spot, or not big enough or too big.
What's interesting about this is that after the Kaiser abdicates rule, Germany's real problems start because the seeds had already been planted.
Are you sure the real problems didn't start until Germany was crushed in WW1 and then shackled with the Treaty of Versailles for the next 20 years? That may have had more to do with it than a figurehead monarch and his abdication. The military ran Germany until after WW1 not the Kaiser. The same military rule is what led Japan into WW2, not the Emperor.
I'm not personally claiming anything here. Suggest reading the article, it's entertaining and thought provoking if nothing else. The article covers the guy including his time in charge and the years after he was out of power.
"And the gravest damage occurred only after Wilhelm abdicated, in November of 1918. (He spent the rest of his life—he survived until 1941—in central Holland.) The defeated Germany sank into years of depression, resentments sharpened, the toxic lie that Germany had been “robbed” of its rightful victory in the war took hold. The rest, as they say, is history."
It seems you are familiar with this period of history, that's cool. I agree the Versailles treaty was a cause of big problems later exploited by the Fuhrer.
I voted today and I hope @TakisMegas and @elminster and any other Ontario dwelling residents did as well
Yep voted in the advanced polls.
Also got my voter card after I had voted at a point and when most of the advanced polling stations had closed (I think I got it on like May 30th). Elections Ontario really dropped the ball on getting them out this year
Regardless, there have been evaluations done that tend to show CNN is far more likely provide truthful information than Fox. I'll include the few I'm familiar with below.
It's not particularly accurate to pass politifacts writing off as an objective or fair analysis when it manifestly isn't, but they do a far better job of picking apart their methods then I can so i'll just repeat them. They don't investigate an equal number of claims among the different networks, nor do they investigate them evenly at all, it is all based on their personal "news judgement" to determine what they want to look at and based on this even they warn against drawing conclusions based on what they say.
Under those conditions, I could make virtually anything I want to be true appear to be true. It doesn't have the appearance of objectivity.
I mean, talk about cherry picking, cherry picking is literally their methodology here.
As for conservatives complaining of media bias more than liberals, with the overwhelming ratio of liberal to conservative journalists being what it is, bias against conservatives in favor of liberals is exactly what you would expect from that media climate. It simply makes sense.
Discussions about liberal and conservative bias seem to always completely ignore radio, which is FAR more wide-reaching than any cable channel could possibly be. And radio is not only overwhelmingly right-wing, it is in fact almost ENTIRELY right-wing, and not just right, but HARD right. As I have said many times before, you could drive from San Francisco to Bangor and from Seattle to Miami, and you would never have a split second where you couldn't pick up Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity in your car. As far as I'm aware, there are only two progressive radio hosts in any sort of national syndication outside the internet, which are Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann, and I'd guarantee that on those same drives, you'd be lucky to catch either of them for more than 30 minutes. On the flip-side, I could name nearly a dozen national right-wing radio hosts off the top of my head: Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Savage, Ingraham, Beck, Hewitt, Jones, Medved, Prager, Larson, Kilmeade. And Alex Jones is syndicated (mostly at night) on TONS of radio stations across the country. He isn't just relegated to Youtube.
Comments
Hannity isnt a journalist. He'll tell you he's not, he's an "opinion journalist" meaning he cherry picks facts from right wing think tanks and spins everything no matter how far he has to stretch it into "Republican good; Democrat bad". He not a guy who "covers" anything. He gives talking points and spins other peoples stories, he doesn't "cover news" or "leave the studio" .
Gorka is more of the same with a Hungarian accent and Hungarian nazi linked party ties and a fake degree. Neither is credible at all. Much less on international politics or North Korea.
ELECTION DAY!
Goodbye Liberals!! Hello either Ford or NDP... too close to call but I’ll take Trump lite or socialist over the corruption that we got any day which is saying a lot.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-d-day-america-germany-strong-relationship-state-department-spokeswoman-heather-nauert-a8387221.html
They complain and try to delegitimize the media but they are the media and they are the only media Trump endorses. So these days, Fox News is state TV. Trump refuses to appear on any channel but Fox where he faces softball questions like "how hard is it being so successful despite democrats unprecedented obstruction? “
They want it both ways. Their main mission seems to be to spread misinformation to elderly people who watch fox news on 24/7. People in this bubble may not realize that they are being lied to. The opinions they get on the news channel are all tilted on direction. The "facts" they support are opinions backed up by cherry picking data to support their opinion. No eagles knelt last year yet fox found some footage of eagles kneeling in prayer and used that to justify Trumps disinviting the team.
Fox does not report the news, it works backwards from prepared talking points supporting an extremist right wing agenda. And Hannity is the top agent of that.
What events has Hannity ever covered before? Where was Hannity when the historic multinational Iran deal was reached? Not there huh? Where was Hannity when the Supreme Court issued their historic ruling on gay marriage? Where was Hannity when Puerto Rico was devasted by Hurricanes?
He's not a news reporter who goes on location to faithfully report the news. He's a news interpreter who tells people how to think using opinion and false evidence.
The only reason he's going the Korea summit is to spread propaganda. He's the Joseph Goebbels to Trump's Hitler.
Hannity is the minister of propaganda. They literally call each other every night to make sure to get their talking points straight. The event hasn't happened yet and Hannity already has a script written about how Trump masterfully performed.
He's not a reporter who covers stories. He's a highly paid opinion propagandist news interpreter.
http://thehill.com/media/354986-trump-often-calls-hannity-after-his-show-report
It benefited from experience acquired on the Finnish and French models, both being late and overbudget and while started earlier will enter production later.
As of today, the EPR has been bought, beyond its home market (France) by Finland, China, UK and India. At 1.600MWatts per hour max they're the most powerful nuclear reactors on earth, even more so than the Chernobyl family.
As you say they are clearly partisan and the choice of how they cover events will reflect that. That means they are far more likely to want to be close to events in which Trump is a major participant - from their perspective I can certainly see why they would want to go to Singapore. Obviously you don't share their perspective and that's fine, but I don't really see why you should be surprised or disappointed if they act differently from the way you would.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699
I don't even like Fox, but it amuses me to no end how they will get heat for what is general practice among their less right of center peers. Agendas and prepared talking points? Like when FBI agents with anti Trump animus are leaking to the media by proxy with an explicitly stated agenda? No agenda or prepared talking points in that reporting? But I digress...
So the former 2nd in command of the FBI is demanding immunity, else he will plead the 5th and refuse to testify. I am sure this is indicative of absolutely nothing wrong having happened, at all.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/05/mccabe-fifth-amendment-fbi-627754
Baghdad Bob is the only Minister of Propaganda I can think of but far fewer people know who you are talking about these days as his moment of relevance was pretty short lived.
The other networks don't do this. Other mainstream outlets have anchors with personal biases sure but that's personal bias, not coordinated. directed. Sure the network boss at these other places says "ok lets cover this this way" or "that's not a story we cover" which influences what people see they don't give out talking points. They don't have a particular coordinated view.
I can see how you or others might view them the same but the link to me isn't there. It is only there if you stretch.
What saying "all networks are the same" means in Foxes case is that you are excusing or giving Fox a license to take the rules of the game and totally rig the game and cheat because "everybody does it". It's like justifying murdering someone because they flipped you off. Maybe a bad analogy but I mean if someone does something wrong, you use that as a pretext to do something way worse.
FBI agents and whatever, that's not coordinated by the mainstream media that's John FBI agent's agenda. Fox literally shapes the news in what it reports, how it reports, and who it has on to support their talking points. Propaganda channel. Older people that leave it on, same type of people that vote and are getting ripped off and stuff by telemarketers are particularly susceptible to the programming and fear mongering that goes on this network.
*Disclaimer: My experience is solely with American stations. I cannot comment on the practices in other countries.
Hannity is a "media personality", definitely not a "journalist". The journalists are the ones running around off-camera and/or behind the scenes compiling the information he summarizes in his editorial pieces. Make no mistake about it--if Hannity is on the screen then you are seeing a video op-ed, not hard journalism (even though, technically op-ed is a subset of journalism).
I say that because I am sure examples of completely intentional misrepresentations of truth by FOX exist, just as they do for CNN. I can't, at least off the top of my head, cite examples of such for the others.
I remember seeing a segment on Fox news where the anchor was complaining about Jonathan Stewart taking a quote out of context or some such, then followed it up by saying, of Jonathan Stewart, "I'd like to turn him into pudding."
I have to wonder if that guy ever got fired. Announcing your desire to physically assault your political enemies sounds like the sort of thing that would get you kicked off of the air.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/cnn-sorry-for-not-airing-full-clip-of-milwaukee-sister?utm_term=.oddPKvLg5x#.epO0MlL2j5
To me though this is irrelevant, old media deception tactics (like all the shady DNC stuff of 2016 really) that won't work in the modern age when the record can be corrected instantaneously. I only wonder how much and how often this sort of thing was gotten away with in the pre-digital age.
Nowadays, the media doesn't need to lie about facts so much as we gravitate into alternative media bubbles that have such little overlap that we can look at the same set of facts and arrive at wildly different conclusions based on the assumptions we bring to the table. If one media bubble doesn't report on it, did it ever really happen or is it fake news propaganda?
Saw this story about Kaiser Wilhelm II, obvious parallels are obvious with a certain contemporary similarly tempered leader and current events.
Ignore the lessons of the past and you may be doomed to repeat history.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-happens-when-a-bad-tempered-distractible-doofus-runs-an-empire
Example Quote from the article:
"One of the many things that Wilhelm was convinced he was brilliant at, despite all evidence to the contrary, was “personal diplomacy,” fixing foreign policy through one-on-one meetings with other European monarchs and statesmen. In fact, Wilhelm could do neither the personal nor the diplomacy, and these meetings rarely went well. The Kaiser viewed other people in instrumental terms, was a compulsive liar, and seemed to have a limited understanding of cause and effect. "
What's interesting about this is that after the Kaiser abdicates rule, Germany's real problems start because the seeds had already been planted.
CNN is incredibly biased. That's undeniably true. It's decided to put itself as a liberal counterbalance to the administration, maybe more so than any network (although I'd argue that the only real difference is that CNN being a 24/7 new channel just means it gets to do it more often. The Late show with Colbert is an example of other networks trying to do the same thing in a more limited fashion).
Regardless, there have been evaluations done that tend to show CNN is far more likely provide truthful information than Fox. I'll include the few I'm familiar with below.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/sep/16/fact-checking-fox-msnbc-and-cnn-punditfacts-networ/
Same study, year later: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/
Not specifically on point but interesting. This suggests conservatives are more prone to complain of bias than other sources:
http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy/
Also unrelated, but speaks to @smeagolheart 's argument: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#13bb410b12ab
I'm not sure what to make of this one:
https://pudding.cool/2018/01/chyrons/
I know how we all like anonymous sources and all, but it does seem to ring true:
Trump has complained to aides about spending two days in Canada for a summit of world leaders, believing the trip is a distraction from his upcoming Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, according to three people familiar with Trump’s views.
But I call bullshit. March 8, 2018 the South Koreans took stage at the White House to announce that Trump will meet Kim Jong Un.
The G7 Summit in Charlevoix, Quebec was announced May 2017.
The G7 Summit, which IMO is more important, was scheduled a good year in advance and so Trump (or at least his team) should have known that it would cut into his planning time. He also cancelled the Kim meeting, what, less than a month ago and could have planned a meeting much further down the road so no one would be scrambling at the last minute like what is happening now.
Pence may end up coming to Canada instead which would be an insult IMO. Pence isn't the one signing the executive orders regarding tariff's on "national security" reasons. (which he is allegedly planning on doing to German Automakers. Maybe he'll tell Merkle, "well you guys did start WW2 you know.")
~~
And anyone who likes following elections (jjstraka, I am looking at you) here is a site to follow the Ontario Election. Polls close at 9 p.m. so that is when the results will start to come in and two or three polls are staying open late due to technical difficulties. Here is a cheat sheet of what each main party said they'll do if elected but I wouldn't put too much weight in it as all three are know to promise and not deliver properly.
I voted today and I hope @TakisMegas and @elminster and any other Ontario dwelling residents did as well. I voted PC, but I am really, really hoping for a NDP minority government. Horwath is the most likable leader of the three main parties and I believe they the less likely to fall into corruption. However, they will overspend, increasing Ontario's debt more and dig a bigger whole for the next generation. A minority should keep them in check, but I doubt the Liberals (or Green or Other parties) will get enough seats to do so. The Liberals need 8 to hold onto official party status. Here is hoping they get 0.
I also do not like the new "voting machine" we had to insert our ballot into. It looked like a shredder. I also do not mind electronic counts as long as they are backed up by individual ones. I am deathly afraid some votes will not get counted if the X is in the wrong spot, or not big enough or too big.
"And the gravest damage occurred only after Wilhelm abdicated, in November of 1918. (He spent the rest of his life—he survived until 1941—in central Holland.) The defeated Germany sank into years of depression, resentments sharpened, the toxic lie that Germany had been “robbed” of its rightful victory in the war took hold. The rest, as they say, is history."
It seems you are familiar with this period of history, that's cool. I agree the Versailles treaty was a cause of big problems later exploited by the Fuhrer.
Also got my voter card after I had voted at a point and when most of the advanced polling stations had closed (I think I got it on like May 30th). Elections Ontario really dropped the ball on getting them out this year
Under those conditions, I could make virtually anything I want to be true appear to be true. It doesn't have the appearance of objectivity.
I mean, talk about cherry picking, cherry picking is literally their methodology here.
As for conservatives complaining of media bias more than liberals, with the overwhelming ratio of liberal to conservative journalists being what it is, bias against conservatives in favor of liberals is exactly what you would expect from that media climate. It simply makes sense.