The Media Industry

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by texas_ex2000, Jul 22, 2016.

  1. Horns11

    Horns11 10,000+ Posts

    Then Trump shouldn't have been a tool when he said "you oughta see this guy" when he was mocking Kovaleski's "nonretraction" from the NYT. Why tell a rabid audience that they should "see" someone, as if with their eyes? Oh, right, he's only speaking in the metaphorical sense of the word "see," as successful businessmen are want to do. And for someone who immediately countered Kovaleski's claim that they had met dozens of times with the fact that he has "one of the all-time greatest memories," then maybe don't tell an audience something that you completely fabricated from a source that you claim is "going down the toilet."

    If you really think it's presidential to poorly imitate people with flailing motions, whether it's reporters or candidates or anything else, then fine.
     
  2. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'm surprised we are having this conversation. He was clearly mocking this reporter but let's assume he wasn't mocking the reporter but mocking disabled people in general. How is that any better?
     
  3. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

  4. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Trump says "you ought to see this guy" all the time in his stump speech.
     
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

  6. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    Because I couldn't give half a **** who gets mocked, or why. Practically everybody on the planet has, at one point in their life or another, deserved to be mocked. A lot of people deserve to be mocked continuously, and everybody under the age of 50 needs to grow a thicker skin.
     
  7. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    And you damn kids get off my lawn!!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Im shocked. Some in the mainstream are calling it like it is to the detriment of HRC.

    CNN today..."Don't blame Comey for this mess"

    "James Comey is not primarily responsible for the political mess caused by the recent discovery of more emails that may be relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. These newly uncovered emails were not written, sent or received by Comey. He didn't store them on his computer, and it wasn't his fault that they were not reviewed many months ago during the initial investigation. In fact, Comey never even knew these emails existed until now.

    That's the problem. Neither Comey nor the FBI had the opportunity to review these emails before making the decision not to charge Hillary Clinton. Discovering them now, so close to the election, has caused a political maelstrom that may pose a problem for Hillary Clinton's apparently smooth ride to victory in the last days of this campaign. But this problem wasn't created by Comey."
     
  9. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Some in the media will turn on Clinton as at some point they are embarrassed to have been seen supporting her.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Nothing til now has shown the least bit of embarrassment for lacking morality during their propaganda firestorm to steal the election for HRC. This is def a new direction.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Some people blame this on technology
    But I prefer to blame it on the writing

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Guys...after last night, the media will never be trusted just because they are the NYTimes, CNN, Washington Post, etc. The NYTimes, the paper of record, became a no holds barred dyed in the wool blue propaganda rag for the Clintons.

    Everything they were reporting - the priority of their time, space, and resources...all were either incorrect or completely out of touch as far as newsworthy-ness and the framing and context of facts.

    While an awakening of the public to this is certainly a good thing, these journalists have damaged the institutions of news and media to such an extent that it may not even function anymore.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. horninchicago

    horninchicago 10,000+ Posts

    Now that Trump has won, they will start doing journalistic stuff and questioning his every decision, unlike they have done the last 8 years.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  14. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    They'll try, but they have no credibility anymore.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. horninchicago

    horninchicago 10,000+ Posts

    Well, he will fight back, too, if they do try.
     
  16. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    I took a peak at post-election Yahoo news after months of boycotting due to bias. First story was "Trump not shielded from legal woes despite win". The permanent boycott is now in place. :puke:
     
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  18. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Headline on CNN right now is "Trump backs off key pledge." :facepalm:

    Of course, CNN is lying to you:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm

    I remembered this:
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2016
  19. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    I think one of the key takeaways from this election is that the MSM has lost much of their influence. I suspect this trend will continue in the future with more options for digital news outlets. The big 3 news networks will be rapidly shrinking as cord cutting options expand. Print media is rapidly becoming extinct.
     
  20. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    This is what these snowflakes are seeing on social media and sharing with each other, but passed off as news. My friends actually believe this.

    http://usuncut.com/news/trump-supporters-brutally-attack-gay-man-california/

    [​IMG]

    1) I can totally believe that a gay Canadian filmmaker would be at bar in Santa Monica watching the election. Suggesting there were Trump supporters, much less psychopathic violent thugs targeting gay men, at a Santa Monica bar is as believable as Mother Teresa at the Mos Eisley Cantina. It's ludicrous and defies all common sense.

    2) It's a huge coincidence that the photo/makeup (ridiculous pose and all that "blood" but none on his expensive Apple Watch) and ludicrous story is exactly what a bad uncreative student filmmaker living in Los Angeles would come up with.

    and

    3) ...Really?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2016
  21. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Have we ever heard the US media use the term "non-college-educated black voters?"

    Why do they do it for whites?
     
    • Like Like x 5
  22. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    With apologies to SH for encroaching on his non-sequitur turf, every time I hear Canada mentioned I think of an old National Lampoon magazine cover from the 80s that said:

    "CANADA, THE GIANT RETARD ON YOUR FRONT PORCH"

    They had some of the greatest humor ever created by genius potheads, but, sadly, their style would never work in today's PC atmosphere ....
     
  23. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I've wondered the same thing. They never make any distinctions among black voters. It's pretty much assumed that they all think alike.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    And that is easily among the ugliest forms of racism.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  26. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Darn straight.
     
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    lol
     
  28. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    A journalist who doesn't get it. Link. He laments the lost faith people have for journalism and that the media never had a chance to sway public opinion. He also says the media failed to "educate the electorate" (and therefore convince them to vote for Hillary) because they were afraid of not being fair and balanced.

    What this dolt misses is that people used to listen to the media until it became clear that they weren't "fair and balanced" and obviously were trying to sway their opinion. The same allegations they threw at Trump (some accurately and some not), they've thrown at every conservative nominee even when it was obviously not true. After hearing the "racists, sexist, homophobe" charges thrown around haphazardly for decades regardless of what the truth was, I think millions of people tuned them out. I think many in the media felt the need to "double-down" on the charges with Trump, but rather than getting voters to believe them, I think it made many voters even more dismissive of the media. By going to Breitbart, Fox News, and Alex Jones (which this guy laments), they did hear a lot of garbage, but it at least wasn't the same garbage.

    If journalists really want to regain the public's respect, they need to recognize that you can't be fair and balanced while trying to sway public opinion. Those goals are in conflict with each other. If you are a journalist who wants to advocate liberalism, then you can't hide behind a cloak of objectivity. So you can do one of two things. You can actually be fair and balanced, which will make the public take you seriously when you do cry wolf, or you can be a blatant propagandist who does nothing but serve as a liberal echo chamber.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  29. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Deez,

    Everything this guy wrote is off in left field:

    Who written him off as a joke? Is that the media's job to write people off as jokes? Wouldn't your job be just to report the facts? If you want to editorialize, that's fine. But be transparent about who is a pundit and who is a journalist/reporter (I'm looking at you Martha Raddatz).

    He was only "worth your time" when he gained steam? I can understand if we're talking about who ever the nameless sacrificial lambs were in the Democratic primaries, but Trump, a reality show billionaire birther...he was only worth giving serious coverage when he gained steam? And when you did start to cover him as a serious news story, it was to scrutinize him? Again, I don't think most people care about what pundits say. If pundits want to rake candidates, that's fine. But journalists should report and scrutinize the facts, not scrutinize his politics.

    We sure do...because when it comes to politics, your job as a journalist isn't to warn people to reject anything. Your job is to report. When journalists start warning people about politics, it becomes propaganda.

    :facepalm: Easy....you just report the facts, your job. That way you don't have to think about how to navigate "impossible" situations. Your job is not to care about what a good portion of the public would tell you or what Trump supporters would complain about. Why do you even f'in care and think about that? Like the Law, the institution of Journalism should blindly be devoted to the value of integrity. If the facts to an allegation of child rape meets centuries long journalistic standards, then damm right your report that. But the allegation was complete and utter bull$%ht. The fact you bring that up in this pathetic excuse of an article when pontificating on journalistic "balance" is everything wrong with the media.

    No...that is not your job. If you want to be Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity, fine. But they aren't journalists. A journalist's job is integrity.

    Another problem was the legitimization of comedic satire as real "journalism" and even as serious editorial.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2016
  30. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Superb points all the way around. I think you draw the line well. I've heard that there is a conflict in journalism circles about whether a journalist's job is to report both sides of an issue or political race and let the public decide or whether it's to report the "truth" (as the journalist sees it). In the literal sense, I think a journalist should report the truth and call BS on a candidate who tells a falsehood. He or she shouldn't allow something that is factually false to go unchallenged.

    However, there are two problems with this mindset in the context of political reporting. First, the modern media doesn't know what a "fact" is anymore. They will deem certain things to be facts that are actually opinions that are simply unquestioned by political elites or just unverifiable. Politifact (or Politifiction as I sometimes call them) is notorious for this.

    Second, the media usually applies a double standard in how they report the "truth" and how they characterize a falsehood when they do call one. Hillary wasn't held to anywhere near as high of a standard for honesty as Trump was. Furthermore, when she was caught in a falsehood, it was usually framed as a "misstatement," an "inaccuracy," or an "inconsistency." What term was usually used to describe Trump's alleged false statements? They were routinely called the far more judgmental "lies."
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page