ilovefuzz.com

The idea that the BCC isn't biased/slanted is silly, though. They just have different biases than most US orgs -- for example the BBC rather famously failed to cover the Lost Boys of Sudan.

Criticism of someone for NOT talking about something is rarely a tenable argument in my mind. Plus, it's become absolute clickbait recently (what "they don't want you to see"). 99% of the time someone says the "mainstream media" isn't covering something, you can Google that issue and "CNN" and pull up an article instantly making that someone a liar who is too lazy to check their own accusations. Then it becomes an argument of priorities/how important an issue is which is down the rabbit hole of subjectivity.

Simplifying everything to "the media" is just selective and idiotic. Usually only used to make the speaker feel better about themself or to create a scapegoat (as The Donald loves to do).

Of course there can be exceptions to all of that. Certainly individual media outlets deserve criticism on individual instances, but in an internet world, saying you can't find the news you want is inexcusable and probably your fault.

snipelfritz wrote:Criticism of someone for NOT talking about something is rarely a tenable argument in my mind. Plus, it's become absolute clickbait recently (what "they don't want you to see"). 99% of the time someone says the "mainstream media" isn't covering something, you can Google that issue and "CNN" and pull up an article instantly making that someone a liar who is too lazy to check their own accusations. Then it becomes an argument of priorities/how important an issue is which is down the rabbit hole of subjectivity.

Simplifying everything to "the media" is just selective and idiotic. Usually only used to make the speaker feel better about themself or to create a scapegoat (as The Donald loves to do).

Of course there can be exceptions to all of that. Certainly individual media outlets deserve criticism on individual instances, but in an internet world, saying you can't find the news you want is inexcusable and probably your fault.

Understood, and yes a blanket "the media" like it's a giant monster is about as silly as referring to "the economy".
I do think it is fair to acknowledge that even in an internet age, what news organizations decide to highlight can put a completely different spin on a days events, and most of what you get now on news channels isn't quite news as much as opinions, "this happened...so lets talk to 6 people about why think think it happened"
I have been in many situations where "not talking about something" was pretty much a damnable offense that cost people jobs.

hbombgraphics wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:Criticism of someone for NOT talking about something is rarely a tenable argument in my mind. Plus, it's become absolute clickbait recently (what "they don't want you to see"). 99% of the time someone says the "mainstream media" isn't covering something, you can Google that issue and "CNN" and pull up an article instantly making that someone a liar who is too lazy to check their own accusations. Then it becomes an argument of priorities/how important an issue is which is down the rabbit hole of subjectivity.

Simplifying everything to "the media" is just selective and idiotic. Usually only used to make the speaker feel better about themself or to create a scapegoat (as The Donald loves to do).

Of course there can be exceptions to all of that. Certainly individual media outlets deserve criticism on individual instances, but in an internet world, saying you can't find the news you want is inexcusable and probably your fault.

Understood, and yes a blanket "the media" like it's a giant monster is about as silly as referring to "the economy".
I do think it is fair to acknowledge that even in an internet age, what news organizations decide to highlight can put a completely different spin on a days events, and most of what you get now on news channels isn't quite news as much as opinions, "this happened...so lets talk to 6 people about why think think it happened"
I have been in many situations where "not talking about something" was pretty much a damnable offense that cost people jobs.

"the media" is a form of entertainment, the news has been 50+ % entertainment for a long time now, and that's fine as long as we understand that and fact check shit for our selves / know sources we [think] we can trust. by now people [at least in the western world post ww2 ] "should" know better than to trust what they hear from mass media.. but they must not be, cuz, you know, trumP

Poisoning the well of "media" is how Trump gets away with saying so much blatantly untrue stuff even when CNN is constantly calling him on it.

snipelfritz wrote:Poisoning the well of "media" is how Trump gets away with saying so much blatantly untrue stuff even when CNN is constantly calling him on it.

exactly
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8[/youtube]

hbombgraphics wrote: and most of what you get now on news channels isn't quite news as much as opinions, "this happened...so lets talk to 6 people about why think think it happened"

This is fair, but like you sort of said: covering politics will innately have some bias. So it's just one format to have a reporter present the facts as objectively as possible, then have a discussion from people who clearly acknowledge their bias for a candidate or a side.

But I like argument and debate, so it's all dandy to me.

snipelfritz wrote:But I like argument and debate, so it's all dandy to me.

and that is one of the problems I have heard very few real debates that go up to the main stage so to speak that are not just
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvcnx6-0GhA[/youtube]

Real debate and discussion very healthy, educational, good for people.
Loud yelling of talking points......not so much.

Many people are saying that Obama founded ISIS not too long after he was born in Kenya.

Chankgeez wrote: Many people are saying that Obama founded ISIS not too long after he was born in Kenya.

that's true, he also pledges the flag with his left hand which is worse than Gabby Douglas

I think you mean Barack Hussein Obama.

My final point on the whole media thing is the innate problem that pretty much any individual involved in politics with any clout or verified knowledge that would be on a show to discuss/debate is already going to have some sort of affiliation or personal stake in politics anyway. No discussion exists in a vacuum. And while Oxford style debate sounds civil and enlightening, it is more of an exercise in rhetoric than it is a practical discussion of real-world policy reflective of the politics of a representative democracy.

So as usual, it's all the fault of stupid people. Fat waddling sows.

snipelfritz wrote:So as usual, it's all the fault of stupid people. Fat waddling sows.

A lot of people are saying that after Trump gets elected he's gonna try to pass a law to make all American males dress like this:

Chankgeez wrote:A lot of people are saying that after Trump gets elected he's gonna try to pass a law to make all American males dress like this:

OMG finally proof that de-evolution is real!!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JdS-sSKsBc[/youtube]