US Politics Thread

[Bigga]

From the way you argue, I can tell you don't fully grasp how disinformation works... Will discuss that more later.



These are just talking points. I can tell you don't watch much Fox. Rather you watch what others say about Fox. If you want to partake in a honest conversation, you'd produce clips of Fox actual disinformation claims and I can agree or disagree on those claims.

You making generalized leftist claims about what Fox said, isn't evidence of what they've said. And I can't agree with your conclusions about them because you said so.

But as a general rule, I am annoyed by disinformation and often watch multiple sources to reduce the amount of disinformation I believe.

As it relates to regulations, you seem to be quite naive as to how complex of an issue this is...

You can literally make factual statements that invariably misleads a majority of the viewers. How do you regulate that?


Fantastic!!!! Unlike you, I can't wait to be asked this question :)

Here is a 2 minute clip of MSNBC'S Nicole Wallace misinforming the public time and time again.

By the way, this video was put together by left leaning journalist Glenn Greenwald:




There are loads of these type videos on YouTube. You should Google them.

Don't Walk, Run is a conservative YouTube channel that dedicates his time to debunking Leftist claims that are false or misleading, by actually digging into the claims and the sources for those claims. Feel free to watch a few of his videos. You might even find a few things you believe that he debunks with evidence.

I like Greenwald and have posted some of his stuff myself. It's not without reason, but he can be bitter sometimes.

However, he's completely correct on the hypocrisy of 'liberal media' with disinformation and 'fact checking' for the right and the actual left.

 

[buckshot]

This woman just won reelection in her district. She's definitely one of the five most stupid members of congress but she never asked the department of interior if they could move the moon to stop rising ocean levels.

 

[mancity1]

This woman just won reelection in her district. She's definitely one of the five most stupid members of congress but she never asked the department of interior if they could move the moon to stop rising ocean levels.

What's more frightening is that she apparently has had 9000 plus replies.

Twitter has a lot to answer for (LOL) , I am glad I get zapped inside every time I think about opening up an account.

 

[laserblue]

From the way you argue, I can tell you don't fully grasp how disinformation works... Will discuss that more later.



These are just talking points. I can tell you don't watch much Fox. Rather you watch what others say about Fox. If you want to partake in a honest conversation, you'd produce clips of Fox actual disinformation claims and I can agree or disagree on those claims.

You making generalized leftist claims about what Fox said, isn't evidence of what they've said. And I can't agree with your conclusions about them because you said so.

But as a general rule, I am annoyed by disinformation and often watch multiple sources to reduce the amount of disinformation I believe.

As it relates to regulations, you seem to be quite naive as to how complex of an issue this is...

You can literally make factual statements that invariably misleads a majority of the viewers. How do you regulate that?


Fantastic!!!! Unlike you, I can't wait to be asked this question :)

Here is a 2 minute clip of MSNBC'S Nicole Wallace misinforming the public time and time again.

By the way, this video was put together by left leaning journalist Glenn Greenwald:




There are loads of these type videos on YouTube. You should Google them.

Don't Walk, Run is a conservative YouTube channel that dedicates his time to debunking Leftist claims that are false or misleading, by actually digging into the claims and the sources for those claims. Feel free to watch a few of his videos. You might even find a few things you believe that he debunks with evidence.

No-one beats the master of lies and disinformation Tucker Carlson on Fox. His defence in court when faced with a defamation lawsuit was that he's an entertainer and that no sensible person would believe a word he says. The judge agreed and stated just before acquitting him "The general tenor of the show should then inform a viewer that Carlson is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses and is instead engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary". Exaggeration = bullshit and non-literal commentary = lies.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

No-one beats the master of lies and disinformation Tucker Carlson on Fox. His defence in court when faced with a defamation lawsuit was that he's an entertainer and that no sensible person would believe a word he says. The judge agreed and stated just before acquitting him "The general tenor of the show should then inform a viewer that Carlson is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses and is instead engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary". Exaggeration = bullshit and non-literal commentary = lies.

View attachment 45360

Is it true that he is a nonce that eats babies?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Is it true that he is a nonce that eats babies?

Who, Dax? Oh. You meant Tucker. Sorry.

 

[Dax777]

No-one beats the master of lies and disinformation Tucker Carlson on Fox. His defence in court when faced with a defamation lawsuit was that he's an entertainer and that no sensible person would believe a word he says. The judge agreed and stated just before acquitting him "The general tenor of the show should then inform a viewer that Carlson is not stating actual facts about the topics he discusses and is instead engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary". Exaggeration = bullshit and non-literal commentary = lies.

View attachment 45360

Ninth Circuit backs dismissal of defamation suit against Rachel Maddow

The Ninth Circuit found MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s comment that One America News “really literally is paid Russian propaganda” was “an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story.”

www.courthousenews.com

Here is a similar acquittal for the mirror opposite of Tucker Carlson on the Left:

Rachel Maddow

She too got an acquittal in a lawsuit brought against her on the same basis "Exaggeration and opinion."


Again, this further supports my original position that misinformation is a common practice on every major News channel.

It is the norm for all of them. Not the exception. To that effect, I can say this: If anyone is of the opinion that Fox news misinforms while the likes of CNN n MSNBC are generally more credible, then I can conclude without worry that such a person is currently highly misinformed.

And that unfortunately is true of most on this thread.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Ninth Circuit backs dismissal of defamation suit against Rachel Maddow

The Ninth Circuit found MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s comment that One America News “really literally is paid Russian propaganda” was “an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story.”

www.courthousenews.com

Here is a similar acquittal for the mirror opposite of Tucker Carlson on the Left:

Rachel Maddow

She too got an acquittal in a lawsuit brought against her on the same basis "Exaggeration and opinion."


Again, this further supports my original position that misinformation is a common practice on every major News channel.

It is the norm for all of them. Not the exception. To that effect, I can say this: If anyone is of the opinion that Fox news misinforms while the likes of CNN n MSNBC are generally more credible, then I can conclude without worry that such a person is currently highly misinformed.

And that unfortunately is true of most on this thread.

This is baloney. I've previously spoken of the flaw on relying on infotainment for factual information before and Maddow and John Stewart were cited examples.

But there is a big difference between exaggeration for comedy and supporting fringe and unhinged conspiratorial beliefs.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Ninth Circuit backs dismissal of defamation suit against Rachel Maddow

The Ninth Circuit found MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s comment that One America News “really literally is paid Russian propaganda” was “an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story.”

www.courthousenews.com

Here is a similar acquittal for the mirror opposite of Tucker Carlson on the Left:

Rachel Maddow

She too got an acquittal in a lawsuit brought against her on the same basis "Exaggeration and opinion."


Again, this further supports my original position that misinformation is a common practice on every major News channel.

It is the norm for all of them. Not the exception. To that effect, I can say this: If anyone is of the opinion that Fox news misinforms while the likes of CNN n MSNBC are generally more credible, then I can conclude without worry that such a person is currently highly misinformed.

And that unfortunately is true of most on this thread.

This is an absolute horseshit post from someone who I guarantee has never worked in, nor dealt with, media of any kind -- including any of the organizations mentioned (unlike yours truly, who has dealt with ALL of them) -- but at least you've found a way to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you.

It is truly staggering how little you know compared to how much you think you know. It really is.

 

[Dax777]

This is baloney. I've previously spoken of the flaw on relying on infotainment for factual information before and Maddow and John Stewart were cited examples.

But there is a big difference between exaggeration for comedy and supporting fringe and unhinged conspiratorial beliefs.

Rachel Maddow is not a comedy news show. It's a straight up opinions news show. Conflating Maddow with Stewart's daily show is the height of disingenuousness.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Rachel Maddow is not a comedy news show. It's a straight up opinions news show. Conflating Maddow with Stewart's daily show is the height of disingenuousness.

This is a strawman. Rachel Maddow has never made jokes during her show?

It's infotainment i.e. information packaged in an entertaining not merely interesting format.

Go look up BBC outside source with Ros Atkins or various programs put out by the BBC News Channel, very few lean towards entertainment in the same way as American news broadcasters do.

The fact that you actually believe there is an equivalence of truth between Maddow and Tucker shows you have decoupled from reality.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

This is a strawman. Rachel Maddow has never made jokes during her show?

It's infotainment i.e. information packaged in an entertaining not merely interesting format.

Go look up BBC outside source with Ros Atkins or various programs put out by the BBC News Channel, very few lean towards entertainment in the same way as American news broadcasters do.

The fact that you actually believe there is an equivalence of truth between Maddow and Tucker shows you have decoupled from reality.

Maddow is pretty straight up with her reporting of the facts. Maybe a touch sensationalist (and snarky), but still never sways from the truth. She's pretty damn smart too. Carlson is an out-and-out lair and (not so) closet racist.

Carlson has a BA in History. Maddow holds a Doctorate in political science from Oxford as well as a Bachelors degree in public policy.

 

[Dax777]

This is an absolute horseshit post from someone who I guarantee has never worked in, nor dealt with, media of any kind -- including any of the organizations mentioned

And that's important how? Are you saying only people who have worked or dealt with those channels are able to tell when they misinform?

Why do you even come up with these idiotic objections?

This is a strawman. Rachel Maddow has never made jokes during her show?

This is the straw man. They all make jokes on their shoes. Including Tucker. That's not the point.

These are opinion shows that sometimes make jokes.

John Stewart is a jokes show, that sometimes has an opinion. Stewart exaggerates as a rule. These guys, including Maddow and Carlson don't.

So, No!!! Maddow is NOT like Stewart..

It's infotainment i.e. information packaged in an entertaining not merely interesting format.

Where did I say it wasn't. That's exactly what I pointed out earlier.

Go look up BBC outside source with Ros Atkins or various programs put out by the BBC News Channel, very few lean towards entertainment in the same way as American news broadcasters do.

Again, you are preaching to the choir. I already said this.

The fact that you actually believe there is an equivalence of truth between Maddow and Tucker shows you have decoupled from reality.

Proving this requires evidence not just mere assertions. They both 'Infotain' based on their political leanings.

That you call one 'misinformation,' and the other one 'exagerration' just shows your bias. Is all.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

And that's important how? Are you saying only people who have worked or dealt with those channels are able to tell when they misinform?

Why do you even come up with these idiotic objections?

This is the straw man. They all make jokes on their shoes. Including Tucker. That's not the point.

These are opinion shows that sometimes make jokes.

John Stewart is a jokes show, that sometimes has an opinion. Stewart exaggerates as a rule. These guys, including Maddow and Carlson don't.

So, No!!! Maddow is NOT like Stewart..



Where did I say it wasn't. That's exactly what I pointed out earlier.


Again, you are preaching to the choir. I already said this.


Proving this requires evidence not just mere assertions. They both 'Infotain' based on their political leanings.

That you call one 'misinformation,' and the other one 'exagerration' just shows your bias. Is all.

So you didn't post this a few pages back?

To that effect, I can say this: If anyone is of the opinion that Fox news misinforms while the likes of CNN n MSNBC are generally more credible, then I can conclude without worry that such a person is currently highly misinformed.

FAKE NEWS. Both sides.

LOOOSER.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

And that's important how? Are you saying only people who have worked or dealt with those channels are able to tell when they misinform?

No. I am saying you are terrible at it and I am better than you.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I take it back - our Chris Philp is a brilliant politician

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

So you didn't post this a few pages back?



FAKE NEWS. Both sides.

LOOOSER.

“Both sides” is so Nixon. See the TV poll rigging exercise he made his interns do, then, when uncovered, claimed he did it because he assumed the Dems would too. The first “bots” were on 3x5 index cards.

 

[Dax777]

So you didn't post this a few pages back?



FAKE NEWS. Both sides.

LOOOSER.

I notice you haven't actually taken a position. What's your position exactly? That Maddow 'exaggerates while Carlson misinforms? That Maddow misinformms but less than Carlson? That only Carlson misinforms? Let's make sure we actually disagree here.

Let's not be like like Foggy. Who doesn't disagree but respond as if he does.


I repeat! They all misinform. Consistently!

 

[Dax777]

“Both sides” is so Nixon. See the TV poll rigging exercise he made his interns do, then, when uncovered, claimed he did it because he assumed the Dems would too. The first “bots” were on 3x5 index cards.

It's not "both sides', it's any and all opinion laden show.
They all :
1. Tell outright lies,
2. Exaggerate for emphasis
3. Omit relevant facts,
4. Conflate unrelated issues ( This you are good at.)
5. Frame an issue in a way that guarantees the audience will be misinformed.
6. Appeals to Authority and Emotions.
7. Use faulty comparisons.

The list of tricks go on and on. All of these end up creating the same effect. A misinformed audience.

The above applies equally to The Rachel Maddow show, Tucker Carlson tonight, The Reid Out. Don Lemon, the Guv's brother, the Five and on and on.

 

[Dax777]

No you are not. That's all in your head.