I like this my take. It is refreshing especially now that we are being bombarded with so much misinformation and many people are choosing to believe in misinformation and rejecting credible information sources without bothering to fact check.
Well what about the law Ronald reagen repelled in the 80's that let journalists not have to prove their sources I believe it was, basically let fake newa start way back then.. ok look at the ownership of mass media in the 60's it was over 200 entities down to only 6 now.. 'splain that sista!!
I read some of it, but it's genuinely too long and jargony for me to fully study and respond to you in a timely manner. So, if you're more knowledgeable on it, do you want to give me a synopsis while I continue to read through?
Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA.
The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.
So essentially the CIA attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. It funded student and cultural organizations and magazines as front organizations.
That's interesting, I hadn't ever heard of that before. But, I'm also Canadian, so, that may be why I missed that memo. But still really interesting nonetheless. And fucked up.
If you can't see Media is biased against Trump, Conservatives , then you either just stupid or have your head up your ass, or refuse to accept the truth. Poll after poll , people see the media as biased. They think they lie , are not honest, and have a hidden agenda. That is a big reason Trump got elected in the first place.
Journalism is a joke these days, it's pretty much just "Orange Man Bad". I don't watch any of it, 90% of it is complete crap. If I was a journalist in this day and age, I would be completely embarrassed at what it has become. Click bait fear porn for the uninformed.
It's more nuanced than people think, I agree. I have a suggestion that you write your next piece on cable news in general, since it just seems to serve as red meat for political camps. Remember that time CNN doxxed a 14-year old boy because he posted a meme on the internet, no less based of a buzzfeed article? The other networks have their problems but that was the most egregious abuse of the public by the press that I have ever seen.
There is some good, unbiased media available, but most of the mainstream ones (MSNBC, Fox, CNN) are utter garbage. They report facts, but in a very biased manner. They attempt to paint a picture with the facts in order to sway the audience to their way of thinking, which of course is not unbiased media.
I wouldn't say That all media is false. But a large amount of media is just about giving attention to the wrong and unnecessary things. Very less amount of attention is given to wholesome things. It's possible to say that if it gets too much media attention it's made up or messed up most of the time.
People and politicians, in general, unfortunately, suck out loud. All try to get away with whatever they can, point fingers at one another, regardless of party or politics, whilst almost always being hypocrites themselves.
Indeed, stupid people who believe conspiracy theories with zero evidence are stupid people who believe conspiracy theories with zero evidence. Currently, there are about 50-60 million of them in the United States, most of whom vote Republican. Sadly.
Narcissistic theme: "here are my conclusions. I decide who's beliefs/ideas are valid. Anyone who does not agree with my perceptions, judgement, and evaluations is a moron."
ME: "But what about all the republicans who believe opposite."
"My conclusions make sense to me, theirs do not, therefore theirs are wrong, because I live in absolute world, where every conspiracy theory has zero evidence"
The problem with "zero evidence" is it instantly suggests over generalization as you assert anyone who believes conspiracy theories is "stupid" because there is absolutely zero evidence for any conspiracy theory that has ever existed.
IF there's anyone stupid (ignorant a more correct term), it's someone who claims their beliefs are the only correct ones, and there exists an entire category of beliefs without any evidence ever to suggest truth behind them, all of which happen to disagree with your beliefs.
None necessary "champ" (lol love the belittling attempt to demean me). I've reconsidered. Every perspective you believe is automatically correct Your response is brilliant, reveals the highest intellectual ability, and greatest brilliance.
Also, sadly, this "ME: "But what about all the republicans who believe opposite."" is irrelevant, as taking your point that stupidity and ignorance is just a "difference of beliefs" is inherently irrational and illogical-- choosing to believe lies or stupidity isn't a system of belief. Republicans don't think that facts are real, which is why they vote the way they do. That isn't a belief system. Your "belief," or theirs, whatever, isn't relevant.
"choosing to believe lies or stupidity isn't a system of belief." - again, your issue is who is the arbiter of truth.
Me: I think you're lying, as do millions of others. You: I'm the all-knowing decider of what's a lie. Me: I have a different belief. You: epublicans don't think that facts are real, which is why they vote the way they do. That isn't a belief system. Your "belief," or theirs, whatever, isn't relevant. Me: I have a different perspective You: before even hearing it, it's wrong. Me: So you are the only one who gets to decide truth, my perspective is so irrelevant you will attack it before it's presented? You: Yes.
We'll just settle on everything you perceive is correct, you're all-knowing, nothing exists beyond your beliefs and perceptions which could possibly make any perspective you have incorrect.
Also, suggest trying to be objective; avoid emulating President Trump with with name calling, insults if you're so against republicans. I suggest you act less like the leader of the Republican party you claim to hate as a way to represent Democrats, and argue in favor of them.
@chris0977 Your suggestions are... well, I'm not quite sure what they are. Words fail. Anyway, again, assuming you can read, I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem this can be useful to you. You must have missed it the first time.
Can you give me a few articles then that are 100 per cent completely false, 100 per cent confirmed, that come from trusted news institutions - other than blogs, personal/independents or fox news?
It operating under the assumption that you, as a journalist, have the capabilities of diagnosing what the problem is. The simple fact is that due to the wide range of topics a journalist will cover it's impossible for them to have the necessary expertise to cover all issues or interests (or in many cases any) accurately. Considering your profession requires the use of language being ignorant on how such statement could be interpreted counter to what you wish it to mean isn't exactly beneficial to your claim that journalists face unwarranted criticisms.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
40Opinion
I like this my take. It is refreshing especially now that we are being bombarded with so much misinformation and many people are choosing to believe in misinformation and rejecting credible information sources without bothering to fact check.
Well what about the law Ronald reagen repelled in the 80's that let journalists not have to prove their sources I believe it was, basically let fake newa start way back then.. ok look at the ownership of mass media in the 60's it was over 200 entities down to only 6 now.. 'splain that sista!!
Have you ever heard of Operation Mockingbird? https://www.cia.gov/open/Family%20Jewels.pdf
I read some of it, but it's genuinely too long and jargony for me to fully study and respond to you in a timely manner. So, if you're more knowledgeable on it, do you want to give me a synopsis while I continue to read through?
Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA.
The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.
documents.theblackvault.com/.../...kingbirdCIA.pdf
So essentially the CIA attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. It funded student and cultural organizations and magazines as front organizations.
That's interesting, I hadn't ever heard of that before. But, I'm also Canadian, so, that may be why I missed that memo. But still really interesting nonetheless. And fucked up.
Yeah I’ll be making some more mytakes about some of those operations
Well, if and when you do, send them my way.
I will (: I have some other interesting ones as well.
If you can't see Media is biased against Trump, Conservatives , then you either just stupid or have your head up your ass, or refuse to accept the truth. Poll after poll , people see the media as biased. They think they lie , are not honest, and have a hidden agenda. That is a big reason Trump got elected in the first place.
Journalism is a joke these days, it's pretty much just "Orange Man Bad". I don't watch any of it, 90% of it is complete crap. If I was a journalist in this day and age, I would be completely embarrassed at what it has become. Click bait fear porn for the uninformed.
It's more nuanced than people think, I agree. I have a suggestion that you write your next piece on cable news in general, since it just seems to serve as red meat for political camps. Remember that time CNN doxxed a 14-year old boy because he posted a meme on the internet, no less based of a buzzfeed article? The other networks have their problems but that was the most egregious abuse of the public by the press that I have ever seen.
TL;DR
There is some good, unbiased media available, but most of the mainstream ones (MSNBC, Fox, CNN) are utter garbage. They report facts, but in a very biased manner. They attempt to paint a picture with the facts in order to sway the audience to their way of thinking, which of course is not unbiased media.
The media is such a stooge of the left, how can you even try to dignify what passes as MSM.
Thank God for the Internet so that people can receive information beyond the liberal talking points and programming.
@sandratcoleman19 Reported as Spam.
I wouldn't say That all media is false. But a large amount of media is just about giving attention to the wrong and unnecessary things. Very less amount of attention is given to wholesome things. It's possible to say that if it gets too much media attention it's made up or messed up most of the time.
People and politicians, in general, unfortunately, suck out loud. All try to get away with whatever they can, point fingers at one another, regardless of party or politics, whilst almost always being hypocrites themselves.
Indeed, stupid people who believe conspiracy theories with zero evidence are stupid people who believe conspiracy theories with zero evidence. Currently, there are about 50-60 million of them in the United States, most of whom vote Republican. Sadly.
Narcissistic theme: "here are my conclusions. I decide who's beliefs/ideas are valid. Anyone who does not agree with my perceptions, judgement, and evaluations is a moron."
ME: "But what about all the republicans who believe opposite."
"My conclusions make sense to me, theirs do not, therefore theirs are wrong, because I live in absolute world, where every conspiracy theory has zero evidence"
The problem with "zero evidence" is it instantly suggests over generalization as you assert anyone who believes conspiracy theories is "stupid" because there is absolutely zero evidence for any conspiracy theory that has ever existed.
IF there's anyone stupid (ignorant a more correct term), it's someone who claims their beliefs are the only correct ones, and there exists an entire category of beliefs without any evidence ever to suggest truth behind them, all of which happen to disagree with your beliefs.
@chris0977 Oh champ... I'm so sorry.
None necessary "champ" (lol love the belittling attempt to demean me). I've reconsidered. Every perspective you believe is automatically correct Your response is brilliant, reveals the highest intellectual ability, and greatest brilliance.
@chris0977 Here, I think this may help you. If you can read. I have my doubts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Also, sadly, this "ME: "But what about all the republicans who believe opposite."" is irrelevant, as taking your point that stupidity and ignorance is just a "difference of beliefs" is inherently irrational and illogical-- choosing to believe lies or stupidity isn't a system of belief. Republicans don't think that facts are real, which is why they vote the way they do. That isn't a belief system. Your "belief," or theirs, whatever, isn't relevant.
"choosing to believe lies or stupidity isn't a system of belief." - again, your issue is who is the arbiter of truth.
Me: I think you're lying, as do millions of others.
You: I'm the all-knowing decider of what's a lie.
Me: I have a different belief.
You: epublicans don't think that facts are real, which is why they vote the way they do. That isn't a belief system. Your "belief," or theirs, whatever, isn't relevant.
Me: I have a different perspective
You: before even hearing it, it's wrong.
Me: So you are the only one who gets to decide truth, my perspective is so irrelevant you will attack it before it's presented?
You: Yes.
We'll just settle on everything you perceive is correct, you're all-knowing, nothing exists beyond your beliefs and perceptions which could possibly make any perspective you have incorrect.
Also, suggest trying to be objective; avoid emulating President Trump with with name calling, insults if you're so against republicans. I suggest you act less like the leader of the Republican party you claim to hate as a way to represent Democrats, and argue in favor of them.
@chris0977 Your suggestions are... well, I'm not quite sure what they are. Words fail. Anyway, again, assuming you can read, I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem this can be useful to you. You must have missed it the first time.
I don't trust the media for 1 minute. They never tell you the truth and now it's make it seem worse than it really is. It's all fake and lies
Can you give me a few articles then that are 100 per cent completely false, 100 per cent confirmed, that come from trusted news institutions - other than blogs, personal/independents or fox news?
"It's to make sure, you as a member of our society, have the opportunity to see where the problems are"
...
Well, there's your problem.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but alright lol.
It operating under the assumption that you, as a journalist, have the capabilities of diagnosing what the problem is. The simple fact is that due to the wide range of topics a journalist will cover it's impossible for them to have the necessary expertise to cover all issues or interests (or in many cases any) accurately. Considering your profession requires the use of language being ignorant on how such statement could be interpreted counter to what you wish it to mean isn't exactly beneficial to your claim that journalists face unwarranted criticisms.
i'm kind of tired of this copy and paste
Nice take nice boobs👍
Well done. Good my take. 👍😊
you're getting kinda fat
Teasing me with those sweet ginger tits 😍
Good take on a very important subject.
Epic