Jump to content

The American Media Should Not Be Trusted


Recommended Posts

 

 

Reason USA Today (an official social media ‘fact-checker’) removed 23 articles marks another banner week for #Journalism

 

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2022/06/17/reason-usa-today-an-official-social-media-fact-checker-removed-23-articles-marks-another-banner-week-for-journalism/

 

 

Yes, let’s not forget that the USA Today is one of social media platforms’ go-to “fact-checkers” as of March 2020:

 

USA TODAY announced today that it is joining Facebook’s Third-Party Fact-Checking Program. As a program partner, USA TODAY, along with other third-party fact-checkers certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network, will partner to independently review, rate and verify news content on Facebook and Instagram to help prevent the spread of false information.

 

“As a media organization with unparalleled local-to-national reach, we take our commitment to providing people with truthful information very seriously, and fact-checking is integral to the journalism being done by USA TODAY and in Gannett newsrooms across the country” said Maribel Perez Wadsworth, Gannett’s news leader and Publisher of USA TODAY. “We also recognize that the distribution of false information on social media is a concerning issue that warrants attention in today’s world, so joining Facebook’s fact-checking program to identify misinformation felt like a natural step for us. We are proud to partner with Facebook on a program with such an important mission.”

 

And yet in light of this most recent example of “journalism,” the media continue to be baffled as to why their credibility has gone completely down the drain.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

Yeah, you tell 'em "Rising Serpent." 👍

 

The USA Today is forced to retract 23 stories by a single reporter. Some stories in which she literally fabricated quotes. No comment on that, instead cast doubt on the messenger.

 

How very @Jauronimo of you.

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

The USA Today is forced to retract 23 stories by a single reporter. Some stories in which she literally fabricated quotes. No comment on that, instead cast doubt on the messenger.

 

How very @Jauronimo of you.

If you think the sources you frequent have the integrity to retract, correct, or admit any fault then I have some waterfront property in South Dakota I'd like to sell you.  

 

USA Today was the first hit when I googled one of your Jan 6 sob stories about the persecuted bystander who pepper sprayed a cop.  It was corroborated by 20 other sources.  For some weird reason AG had a different version. 

 

You're clearly very butthurt and making this personal. 

Edited by Jauronimo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jauronimo said:

If you think the sources you frequent have the integrity to retract, correct, or admit any fault then that would be completely on brand for you.  

 

USA Today was the first hit when I googled one of your Jan 6 sob stories about the persecuted bystander who pepper sprayed a cop.  It was corroborated by 20 other sources.  For some weird reason AG had a different version. 

 

You're clearly very butthurt and making this personal. 

 

It ain't personal. You are just a more articulate and less of a broken record  version of @BillStime and @Tiberius. But you're in the exact same "cult" as they are often fond of saying.

 

So I'm going to agree again with what you said yesterday, there's no point discussing any of this with you. 

 

You've been had and you want to continue slurping down the lies. Enjoy it and embrace it!

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

It ain't personal. You are just a more articulate and less of a broken record  version of @BillStime and @Tiberius. But you're in the exact same "cult" as they are often fond of saying.

 

So I'm going to agree again with what you said yesterday, there's no point discussing any of this with you. 

 

You've been had and you want to continue slurping down the lies. Enjoy it and embrace it!

You call me out unprompted, toss a few insults my way, and then declare there's no point in discussing anything with me?!?!?   

 

But its not personal.....at least I have that going for me.

 

Question Mark What GIF by MOODMAN

Edited by Jauronimo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

You call me out unprompted, toss a few insults my way, and then declare there's no point in discussing anything with me?!?!?   

 

But its not personal.....at least I have that going for me.

 

Question Mark What GIF by MOODMAN

 

Yep, I agreed when you said exactly that yesterday and reiterated my agreement today. So no I won't be "discussing" any of this with you, you've proved that you're loaded to the gills with confirmation bias. 

 

 I may call out your BS here and there going forward.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GREAT MOMENTS IN SCIENCE FICTION: 

 

This Golden Age of Journalism.

 

In a parallel multiverse far, far away, “Scoop” Rosenthal, managing editor for a major metropolitan newspaper, dives into an embarrassment of riches.

 

“Hitchens, Woodward, and Pyle,” Scoop barks across the newsroom to his Capitol Hill team. “The Jan. 6 hearings. That trial is all prosecution and no defense. We need to tell the rest of the story.

 

“Hitch, contact the Republicans Nancy Pelosi barred from the committee and find out what questions they would have asked.

 

“Woodward, tell us why law enforcement was so unprepared to handle a storm they seemed to know was coming. Look into the claims that undercover agents in the crowd may have stirred up the mob. That sounds crazy, sure, but given the FBI’s puppeteering in that plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor, who knows? Confirm or debunk, it doesn’t matter.

 

“Pyle, pull together a list of the major 2020 voting irregularities so readers can understand why so many question the result. Make sure to note which claims have been debunked.”

 

Pyle asks: “Should I include the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in the weeks before the election that helped swing the race to Biden, or how reports of the successful COVID vaccine trials were withheld until after the vote?”

 

“Interesting, but off point for this story,” Scoop responds. “That reminds me, we need to compare the charges and treatment of those arrested in the Jan. 6 melee with those picked up during the summer riots. I’m guessing it was not so equal. Okay, get to it.”

 

Next Scoop calls his undercover specialist. “I’ve got a hot one for you, Bly.”

 

Bly: “Let me guess, the violence against the pro-life pregnancy centers. I’ve counted 40 attacks so far since the Supreme Court’s draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked last month.”

 

“You’re a mind reader. Let’s put names and faces to those attackers. Figure out how they communicate and see if you can sign up with Jane’s Revenge, Ruth Sent Us, or some other group that might be involved in the attacks.”

 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/06/24/this_golden_age_of_journalism_147791.html

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

THE TIMES MISREPRESENTS ABORTION AND THE COURT

 

Abortion hysteria has overtaken the New York Times–not that hysteria is foreign to the former Gray Lady these days. This story by Carl Hulse isn’t news, it isn’t even an op-ed. It is a liberal’s temper tantrum. Hulse’s point is to blame Mitch McConnell for recent Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees: “Mitch McConnell’s Court Delivers.” In the course of his screed, Hulse repeatedly gets the facts wrong.

 

Most incredibly, Hulse wrote that in Dobbs the Supreme Court banned abortion. This error raises, once more, the question whether the Times actually employs editors. Is it possible that a second pair of eyes approved that howler?

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/06/the-times-misrepresents-abortion-and-the-court.php

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court.html

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

***** like this is precisely why only the far left believes anything the J6 committee/media is telling us.

 

Nakedly partisan sham show trials while ignoring and squelching any stories that give even a whiff of dem malfeasance let alone slap you across the face crap like this.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

This is why trust in the media is so low, Frenkle.  These videos make the rounds...one time it's a liberal slant, the next time it's Foxy Roxy.  

 

The point, of course, is as the thread suggests: The American Media should not be trusted.  I might tweak that a little bit, and say "The mainstream media outlets in the country should not be trusted implicitly.', but that's drilling down deeper than we need to go here.

 

Glad to have you on the team, soldier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2022 at 2:05 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is why trust in the media is so low, Frenkle.  These videos make the rounds...one time it's a liberal slant, the next time it's Foxy Roxy.  

 

The point, of course, is as the thread suggests: The American Media should not be trusted.  I might tweak that a little bit, and say "The mainstream media outlets in the country should not be trusted implicitly.', but that's drilling down deeper than we need to go here.

 

Glad to have you on the team, soldier. 

 

You got me all wrong. I don't side with the Dems or the Repubs. They are two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned.

 

Do you ever think that the issues of race, religion, abortion, immigration, entitlements, whatever.. are just ways to hide the actual divide: rich vs. poor?

 

I think, with few exceptions, the media is controlled by the ultra wealthy and corporations. We are being fed a stream of 24/7 "news" to keep us occupied while the rich keep us enslaved by debt, poor, powerless, and ignorant of how they might be fcking us over at any given time. We've become this outraged, bi-polar society hyper-focused on what we're told the issues are. Meanwhile, our pensions and retirement accounts are getting skimmed, our money is being made worthless by an endless money printer and nobody in Washington gives a crap about anything but their campaigns and personal wealth. Our politicians sell their souls to corporations for lobby money, which is allowed because these same politicians make the rules. Look at who owns these "news outlets":

 

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/futureofmedia/index-us-mainstream-media-ownership

 

It's a joke that we think we can expect unbiased journalism from any of these places. They all have an agenda.

 

All that said, I think BBC News is pretty good and I think NPR can be excellent at times, though most here probably don't like that one. Neither is privately owned, which I think should be a prerequisite for trusting the information you're consuming. The truth is, nobody gives a crap because most seem to just want to have their biases confirmed in their echo-chamber-of-choice these days and happily become brainwashed lemmings, hooked on MSNBC or FOX or *take your pick.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

You got me all wrong. I don't side with the Dems or the Repubs. They are two sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned.

 

Do you ever think that the issues of race, religion, abortion, immigration, entitlements, whatever.. are just ways to hide the actual divide: rich vs. poor?

 

I think, with few exceptions, the media is controlled by the ultra wealthy and corporations. We are being fed a stream of 24/7 "news" to keep us occupied while the rich keep us enslaved by debt, poor, powerless, and ignorant of how they might be fcking us over at any given time. We've become this outraged, bi-polar society hyper-focused on what we're told the issues are. Meanwhile, our pensions and retirement accounts are getting skimmed, our money is being made worthless by an endless money printer and nobody in Washington gives a crap about anything but their campaigns and personal wealth. Our politicians sell their souls to corporations for lobby money, which is allowed because these same politicians make the rules. Look at who owns these "news outlets":

 

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/futureofmedia/index-us-mainstream-media-ownership

 

It's a joke that we think we can expect unbiased journalism from any of these places. They all have an agenda.

 

All that said, I think BBC News is pretty good and I think NPR can be excellent at times, though most here probably don't like that one. Neither is privately owned, which I think should be a prerequisite for trusting the information you're consuming. The truth is, nobody gives a crap because most seem to just want to have their biases confirmed in their echo-chamber-of-choice these days and happily become brainwashed lemmings, hooked on MSNBC or FOX or *take your pick.

Excellent write up, except maybe for the part about NPR, I listen to various shows from time to time—rather, should say I listened—and there were times I wanted to throw myself out the car with the pompously pompous $&@& they were pitching.   They were collectively the most depressing sad sacks of people I’ve listened to in my years of listening. 
 

To answer your question—yes, I think the hot button issues of our time are manipulated to keep us in conflict. That applies to both parties and pretty much every person who’s gone through Washington the past 100 years.  
 

Side bar—it’s one of the reasons people with conservatistic (I made that up) tendencies gravitated to Trump.  I have no desire to argue whether that was good or bad, smart or silly, or anything else—but it’s important to remember that R Washington insiders were clearly and firmly against Trump until he won.  
 

The abortion issue couldn’t be fixed in the last decade?  Of course it could have been. 

 

The illegal immigration crisis on both sides of the border couldn’t be addressed by either party over the past 50 or 60 years?  Heck, I have to wait in line to be screened and to show my papers when I fly anywhere, and I’ve lived in the same house for nearly 35 years.   To get an enhanced license, I have to show my papers, my passport, utility bills and a W2 and I’ve lived in NY for 60 straight years.  
 

Anyway, we agree here.  Again, welcome to the team.   New guy buys the first round.
 

 
 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...