ilovefuzz.com

jwar wrote:

hbombgraphics wrote:can I just say that I friggen hate Trump's slogan.

Is america not great now? If it's not why do you need a wall to keep people out?
If it's not great, when do you think it was great? Do we go back to slavery? Internment Camps? Prohibition (other Moralist quests that only hurt society)??

Not in love with either candidate but the slogan's this year blow.

Compared to the past, it's better. Is it great? No. I don't believe so. I think we delude ourselves so much that we actually believe the "greatest country in the world" bs sometimes.

It can always be better, but it's not terrible either. It certainly would be nice if we didn't have so many issues, but I suppose every country does. I guess to me saying the country is great is being complacent with the way it is, and I refuse to be that way. I want things to change for the better of all. They probably never will though regardless of who the puppet in the White House is.

You are probably correct that a new leader isn't going to change much, especially one of the extremely polarizing ones we have to choose from this year.

I don't think saying a country is great means anything, there is no metric for that type of talk. Should have added "Define great" to my list above.

Trump can toss it out and because it means absolutely nothing people just suck it up.
Nobody that supports him seems to care about how unsubstantiated most of his claims are and he is such a huge dumpster fire of a person that even if he did have a few valid ideas they would be dismissed by most people.

Hilary is the same way in some regards and it is fun to watch her try to balance between pointing out her experience as a public servant and not wanting people to actually look into what she has done.

Trump should only speak in metaphor & simile. That way the dishonest media will have an easier time interpreting what he's sayin'. Just sayin'.

Chankgeez wrote:Trump should only speak in metaphor & simile. That way the dishonest media will have an easier time interpreting what he's sayin'. Just sayin'.

that's a good idea,
That way he can stop doing the "i didn't really mean what you think I said" thing

It does bring up an interesting topic, how much can we trust anyone in the media right now?

About the same that we always can, which is to say mostly.

Having an editorial bias as an organization and being untrustworthy are two different things -- speaking of nuances that are often lost.

D.o.S. wrote:About the same that we always can, which is to say mostly.

Having an editorial bias as an organization and being untrustworthy are two different things -- speaking of nuances that are often lost.

It's not just a bias though it is choosing what to cover,
I was in an airport about 2 years ago and Boko Haram had just massacred a massive number of people, CNN spent most of the hour I was watching detailing "What the latest mass shooter (of a few people) kept in his i-pod" the Mass Killings in Nigeria were essentially ignored so they could get in the mind of a killer. This isn't them lying about what's happening, it's about them choosing to ignore certain stories in favor of others.

It's similar to how they cover terror attacks in other countries: "70 people dead, among them 3 americans we will now focus on the 3 americans" and these are the stories where we actually get news, if no americans die, they barely get any coverage at all.

I am not saying our media is dishonest and maybe they are just feeding us what we will eat but this type of US-centric news coverage is part of the problem with America's limited and often biased world view.

Yep, everything's manipulated.

I think we tend to mistake laziness for bias or some attempt at controlling discussion.

I do think we could be more focused on a global perspective though.

Edit: then chank ninjas me with the exact anathema to my worldview.

hbombgraphics wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:About the same that we always can, which is to say mostly.

Having an editorial bias as an organization and being untrustworthy are two different things -- speaking of nuances that are often lost.

It's not just a bias though it is choosing what to cover,
I was in an airport about 2 years ago and Boko Haram had just massacred a massive number of people, CNN spent most of the hour I was watching detailing "What the latest mass shooter (of a few people) kept in his i-pod" the Mass Killings in Nigeria were essentially ignored so they could get in the mind of a killer. This isn't them lying about what's happening, it's about them choosing to ignore certain stories in favor of others.

It's similar to how they cover terror attacks in other countries: "70 people dead, among them 3 americans we will now focus on the 3 americans" and these are the stories where we actually get news, if no americans die, they barely get any coverage at all.

I am not saying our media is dishonest and maybe they are just feeding us what we will eat but this type of US-centric news coverage is part of the problem with America's limited and often biased world view.

Nation-centric news coverage is hardly the sole province of the US.

snipelfritz wrote:I think we tend to mistake laziness for bias or some attempt at controlling discussion.

so you have never watched network?

Network is a testament to laziness -- it's all about how they're willing to embrace the easiest way to garner ratings at the expense of journalistic integrity.

snipelfritz wrote:I think we tend to mistake laziness for bias or some attempt at controlling discussion.

I do think we could be more focused on a global perspective though.

Edit: then chank ninjas me with the exact anathema to my worldview.

I think you can attribute some to laziness (not all), it's sloppy easy reporting, nobody wants to see an hour of pictures of dead Nigerian school children while they wait for a flight.

Would love to see more of a global awareness from most americans

D.o.S. wrote:

hbombgraphics wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:About the same that we always can, which is to say mostly.

Having an editorial bias as an organization and being untrustworthy are two different things -- speaking of nuances that are often lost.

It's not just a bias though it is choosing what to cover,
I was in an airport about 2 years ago and Boko Haram had just massacred a massive number of people, CNN spent most of the hour I was watching detailing "What the latest mass shooter (of a few people) kept in his i-pod" the Mass Killings in Nigeria were essentially ignored so they could get in the mind of a killer. This isn't them lying about what's happening, it's about them choosing to ignore certain stories in favor of others.

It's similar to how they cover terror attacks in other countries: "70 people dead, among them 3 americans we will now focus on the 3 americans" and these are the stories where we actually get news, if no americans die, they barely get any coverage at all.

I am not saying our media is dishonest and maybe they are just feeding us what we will eat but this type of US-centric news coverage is part of the problem with America's limited and often biased world view.

Nation-centric news coverage is hardly the sole province of the US.

understood, I have watched enough "everything is awesome" news coverage in China to have a good chuckle

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y[/youtube]

Mudfuzz wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:I think we tend to mistake laziness for bias or some attempt at controlling discussion.

so you have never watched network?

It's my money, and I want it now!

snipelfritz wrote: It's my money, and I want it now!

Those commercials will forever be burned into my brain.

Has anyone seen The Newsroom?
Imagine having news like that.

On the whole "news is too nation-centric" thing. I guess everyone assumes that's what the BBC exists for? To be the "world news" organization in a sea of local/national news agencies.
Isn't it worth noting that any time a news agency starts talking about "the stuff going on out there" they're received with a cacophony of "but what's happening in Amurrricuh?!?!" from their viewers?
I blame viewers for being idiots a little more than I blame the news for facilitating that idiocy. It's a give-stupid-news-or-die country, and news agencies aren't willing to let themselves die by falling on the sword of journalistic integrity yet.