MSM and Rightwing Media and Leftwing Media

[MisterBeale]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

That far too many people get their ‘news’ from unreliable sources is the fault of those individuals, not ‘the media’ – that should be the worry.

Preach!

Hell of a lot of drones (I heard 50% but that's kind of unbelievable) say they get their "news" from freaking Tweeter and Fecesbook, which if true can only be attributed to a complete failure of critical thought.

No. When Clayton talks about, "unreliable sources?" He means independent investigators. I have posted investigations from esteemed folks like John Pilger, Seymour M. Hersh, Robert Perry, John Perkins, etc. He doesn't want to hear it unless it comes from the government or a big conglomerate.

 

[Pogo]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

That far too many people get their ‘news’ from unreliable sources is the fault of those individuals, not ‘the media’ – that should be the worry.

Preach!

Hell of a lot of drones (I heard 50% but that's kind of unbelievable) say they get their "news" from freaking Tweeter and Fecesbook, which if true can only be attributed to a complete failure of critical thought.

The last election cycle I saw a study that said the majority of Americans get their news from Facebook.

I think that is the very definition of the dumbing down of America.

That agrees with what I heard don't-remember-where. I didn't want to believe it, but if one looks around ..... it's difficult not to.

 

[Pogo]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

That far too many people get their ‘news’ from unreliable sources is the fault of those individuals, not ‘the media’ – that should be the worry.

Preach!

Hell of a lot of drones (I heard 50% but that's kind of unbelievable) say they get their "news" from freaking Tweeter and Fecesbook, which if true can only be attributed to a complete failure of critical thought.

No. When Clayton talks about, "unreliable sources?" He means independent investigators. I have posted investigations from esteemed folks like John Pilger, Seymour M. Hersh, Robert Perry, John Perkins, etc. He doesn't want to hear it unless it comes from the government or a big conglomerate.

I really don't care what you want to inject into something some other poster didn't say. I'm talking about what I'm talking about.

 

[Pogo]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

I agree. There is a choke hold on information both with the 5 corporations, but social media giants have an even bigger choke hold. Twitter, facebook, and Google and Yahoo are all hard left and most Americans now get their information from those platforms. They all have way too much power.

It's not that they (Tweeter/Fecesbook) have "too much power". It's that their users are too damned stupid to separate objective fact from unsourced innuendo.

 

[MisterBeale]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

That far too many people get their ‘news’ from unreliable sources is the fault of those individuals, not ‘the media’ – that should be the worry.

Preach!

Hell of a lot of drones (I heard 50% but that's kind of unbelievable) say they get their "news" from freaking Tweeter and Fecesbook, which if true can only be attributed to a complete failure of critical thought.

No. When Clayton talks about, "unreliable sources?" He means independent investigators. I have posted investigations from esteemed folks like John Pilger, Seymour M. Hersh, Robert Perry, John Perkins, etc. He doesn't want to hear it unless it comes from the government or a big conglomerate.

I really don't care what you want to inject into something some other poster didn't say. I'm talking about what I'm talking about.

I just let you know what he considers media and what he considers "reliable sources." You, likewise, injected something into what another poster implied. I just don't think that was the case is all. . .


Opine away my good man.

 

[Pogo]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

That far too many people get their ‘news’ from unreliable sources is the fault of those individuals, not ‘the media’ – that should be the worry.

Preach!

Hell of a lot of drones (I heard 50% but that's kind of unbelievable) say they get their "news" from freaking Tweeter and Fecesbook, which if true can only be attributed to a complete failure of critical thought.

No. When Clayton talks about, "unreliable sources?" He means independent investigators. I have posted investigations from esteemed folks like John Pilger, Seymour M. Hersh, Robert Perry, John Perkins, etc. He doesn't want to hear it unless it comes from the government or a big conglomerate.

I really don't care what you want to inject into something some other poster didn't say. I'm talking about what I'm talking about.

I just let you know what he considers media and what he considers "reliable sources." You, likewise, injected something into what another poster implied. I just don't think that was the case is all. . .


Opine away my good man.

I don't NEED to inject stuff that isn't there. I quote the relevant words and riff on THEM. Not some other words elsewhere that I may not have ever seen -- the words on the page.

 

[iceberg]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

we should be. news is slanted to make you feel, not think. stories on both sides are riddled with calling the other side idiots and telling you why people are guilty of what they say which is based on what someone else said, not what was done.

they report on our gossip, not the story.

and this is why people flock to given sites. they support their emotional views, not tell a complete story.

fact checking is pointless and will only stoke the divide.

but this is also why Sect 230 needs to go. people need to be held accountable and this needs to be cleaned up. but how do you do that to a "free press"?

when they were slamming the black doctor last week (demon sperm lady) never once did the daily beast make a direct reference to any claim they made. I call bullshit, people say I am defending her.

not at all. I'm calling bullshit when a "news" story doesn't cute their points of reference.

I then did something and found something truly scary. most of these other sites are simply signal repeaters.

go to daily beast and find their main story. copy 1st paragraph and search for it in quotes. you'll see that same story on a hundred other sites that simply say "as reported by the daily beast."

nothing like having 1 story on a hundred sites to make it look more credible, huh?

when a story relies on you getting emotional, it's a hack job. blog or editorial at best. the problem is so few write news and so many write opinions.

We then post those opinions in here as fact and the fun begins.

we all have a lot of growing up to do.

 

[iceberg]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

exactly what are the claims of the "rightwing" about the MSM???

That it controls most of the media and it is all leftwing.

right-wing doesn't control the media. people who want you emotional and giving them money do. you say this is a problem for us all then you go back to attacking the right and dismissing the left.

 

[iceberg]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

Yes, but that's not new, not any more.

Part of the problem of that is not only does a small clique of megacorps control the dialogue but they do it in self-feeding ways. If you have a TV channel, and you also have a movie company, and you also have a book publisher, and newspapers/magazines, then you send your latest author out to your own TV stations to do interviews, splash them at the same time in your magazines, then make a movie out of it which you splash back on your TV stations and your billboards --- and you're effectively dictating what the public gets exposed to. Including every little nuance of whatever social control you want to engineer into it.

This I agree. 1 story is put on many locations and tailored to that region.

 

[Coyote]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

exactly what are the claims of the "rightwing" about the MSM???

That it controls most of the media and it is all leftwing.

right-wing doesn't control the media. people who want you emotional and giving them money do. you say this is a problem for us all then you go back to attacking the right and dismissing the left.

I didnt say the rw does. There ars hundreds of sources. Why dont you actually read what I write instead?

 

[Coyote]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

we should be. news is slanted to make you feel, not think. stories on both sides are riddled with calling the other side idiots and telling you why people are guilty of what they say which is based on what someone else said, not what was done.

they report on our gossip, not the story.

and this is why people flock to given sites. they support their emotional views, not tell a complete story.

fact checking is pointless and will only stoke the divide.

but this is also why Sect 230 needs to go. people need to be held accountable and this needs to be cleaned up. but how do you do that to a "free press"?

when they were slamming the black doctor last week (demon sperm lady) never once did the daily beast make a direct reference to any claim they made. I call bullshit, people say I am defending her.

not at all. I'm calling bullshit when a "news" story doesn't cute their points of reference.

I then did something and found something truly scary. most of these other sites are simply signal repeaters.

go to daily beast and find their main story. copy 1st paragraph and search for it in quotes. you'll see that same story on a hundred other sites that simply say "as reported by the daily beast."

nothing like having 1 story on a hundred sites to make it look more credible, huh?

when a story relies on you getting emotional, it's a hack job. blog or editorial at best. the problem is so few write news and so many write opinions.

We then post those opinions in here as fact and the fun begins.

we all have a lot of growing up to do.

Well said. What you say about the Daily Beast, I have noticed elsewhere as well, like Brietbart, all coming back to one source that is usually questionable and can't be verified elsewhere.

So...is there a legal difference between those who publish news and those who spread news? Like platforms and publishers in big tech?

 

[Coyote]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

That far too many people get their ‘news’ from unreliable sources is the fault of those individuals, not ‘the media’ – that should be the worry.

Preach!

Hell of a lot of drones (I heard 50% but that's kind of unbelievable) say they get their "news" from freaking Tweeter and Fecesbook, which if true can only be attributed to a complete failure of critical thought.

The last election cycle I saw a study that said the majority of Americans get their news from Facebook.

I think that is the very definition of the dumbing down of America.

I couldn't believe that ... I saw it also....

 

[SmokeALib]

 

[iceberg]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

exactly what are the claims of the "rightwing" about the MSM???

That it controls most of the media and it is all leftwing.

right-wing doesn't control the media. people who want you emotional and giving them money do. you say this is a problem for us all then you go back to attacking the right and dismissing the left.

I didnt say the rw does. There ars hundreds of sources. Why dont you actually read what I write instead?

it is early and yes, perhaps at times i let past discussions paint over what you are saying with what i've seen you say in the past.

now if your claim is that the left wing doesn't own the media:

There IS a Left-Leaning Media Bias—So Where Do We Go From There? - Braver Angels

We need to make it acceptable again to see something, somewhere, that promulgates a worldview that’s different than ours, without immediately condemning it.

braverangels.org

28 on the left
8 of which i view as "mainstream" where most people just go for news, all "traditional" news sources are left biased.
4 of these, CNN, msnbc, nbc, abc are all "traditional" sources of news people trusted for decades.

17 on the right
only 1 of which is "traditional" news in FOX.

then we could get into "repeater" sites if you'd like. sites that take a story and simply repost it as their own and get their shark sucker fish revenue.

but on the surface, it's 28 to 17, 4 to 1 in favor of the left.

4 to 1 on traditional media to me would indicate they own traditional media and much of the older crowd.

please feel free to offer your own interpretation or list of how the major news sites lean.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

That far too many people get their ‘news’ from unreliable sources is the fault of those individuals, not ‘the media’ – that should be the worry.

There are ample sources of accurate, unbiased news – the AP, Reuters, and the BBC to name a few.

As for the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of five corporate entities, what do you propose be done?

no, they spin left

 

[iceberg]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

we should be. news is slanted to make you feel, not think. stories on both sides are riddled with calling the other side idiots and telling you why people are guilty of what they say which is based on what someone else said, not what was done.

they report on our gossip, not the story.

and this is why people flock to given sites. they support their emotional views, not tell a complete story.

fact checking is pointless and will only stoke the divide.

but this is also why Sect 230 needs to go. people need to be held accountable and this needs to be cleaned up. but how do you do that to a "free press"?

when they were slamming the black doctor last week (demon sperm lady) never once did the daily beast make a direct reference to any claim they made. I call bullshit, people say I am defending her.

not at all. I'm calling bullshit when a "news" story doesn't cute their points of reference.

I then did something and found something truly scary. most of these other sites are simply signal repeaters.

go to daily beast and find their main story. copy 1st paragraph and search for it in quotes. you'll see that same story on a hundred other sites that simply say "as reported by the daily beast."

nothing like having 1 story on a hundred sites to make it look more credible, huh?

when a story relies on you getting emotional, it's a hack job. blog or editorial at best. the problem is so few write news and so many write opinions.

We then post those opinions in here as fact and the fun begins.

we all have a lot of growing up to do.

Well said. What you say about the Daily Beast, I have noticed elsewhere as well, like Brietbart, all coming back to one source that is usually questionable and can't be verified elsewhere.

So...is there a legal difference between those who publish news and those who spread news? Like platforms and publishers in big tech?

these "feeder" sites are likely in the clear cause they don't post the original news, just report on what's been reported. a huge loophole.

 

[progressive hunter]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

we should be. news is slanted to make you feel, not think. stories on both sides are riddled with calling the other side idiots and telling you why people are guilty of what they say which is based on what someone else said, not what was done.

they report on our gossip, not the story.

and this is why people flock to given sites. they support their emotional views, not tell a complete story.

fact checking is pointless and will only stoke the divide.

but this is also why Sect 230 needs to go. people need to be held accountable and this needs to be cleaned up. but how do you do that to a "free press"?

when they were slamming the black doctor last week (demon sperm lady) never once did the daily beast make a direct reference to any claim they made. I call bullshit, people say I am defending her.

not at all. I'm calling bullshit when a "news" story doesn't cute their points of reference.

I then did something and found something truly scary. most of these other sites are simply signal repeaters.

go to daily beast and find their main story. copy 1st paragraph and search for it in quotes. you'll see that same story on a hundred other sites that simply say "as reported by the daily beast."

nothing like having 1 story on a hundred sites to make it look more credible, huh?

when a story relies on you getting emotional, it's a hack job. blog or editorial at best. the problem is so few write news and so many write opinions.

We then post those opinions in here as fact and the fun begins.

we all have a lot of growing up to do.

Well said. What you say about the Daily Beast, I have noticed elsewhere as well, like Brietbart, all coming back to one source that is usually questionable and can't be verified elsewhere.

So...is there a legal difference between those who publish news and those who spread news? Like platforms and publishers in big tech?

brietbart isnt questionable,,,

 

[iceberg]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

we should be. news is slanted to make you feel, not think. stories on both sides are riddled with calling the other side idiots and telling you why people are guilty of what they say which is based on what someone else said, not what was done.

they report on our gossip, not the story.

and this is why people flock to given sites. they support their emotional views, not tell a complete story.

fact checking is pointless and will only stoke the divide.

but this is also why Sect 230 needs to go. people need to be held accountable and this needs to be cleaned up. but how do you do that to a "free press"?

when they were slamming the black doctor last week (demon sperm lady) never once did the daily beast make a direct reference to any claim they made. I call bullshit, people say I am defending her.

not at all. I'm calling bullshit when a "news" story doesn't cute their points of reference.

I then did something and found something truly scary. most of these other sites are simply signal repeaters.

go to daily beast and find their main story. copy 1st paragraph and search for it in quotes. you'll see that same story on a hundred other sites that simply say "as reported by the daily beast."

nothing like having 1 story on a hundred sites to make it look more credible, huh?

when a story relies on you getting emotional, it's a hack job. blog or editorial at best. the problem is so few write news and so many write opinions.

We then post those opinions in here as fact and the fun begins.

we all have a lot of growing up to do.

Well said. What you say about the Daily Beast, I have noticed elsewhere as well, like Brietbart, all coming back to one source that is usually questionable and can't be verified elsewhere.

So...is there a legal difference between those who publish news and those who spread news? Like platforms and publishers in big tech?

also - lets use this as platform vs publisher because there *is* a difference.

*all* of these media sites are "Publishers". this is why you don't see social media in the bias chart. but if you did, where do you think they would fall? i'd say hard left. given the #'s of reach they have, that's a shit ton of people they impact with their "fake news" tags and "fact checks".

now - how come someone who is *not* a news agency can validate / create news without the responsibility each and every one of those publishers has?

Sect 230 is being seriously abused.

A platform by design, law and nature allows you to get work done. you code your programs on the Java, C++ platform, you post in here on the zenforo platform. a platform allows you to get things done but has zero control or authority of what you choose to do on it. that is Sect 230 protection.

it means someone can post some crazy ass shit here on your platform (and i do, sorry about that) and you are not responsible for it. you're just the platform i posted on. it also means since you are not responsible, you don't have to delete it out of fear of legal recourse. S230 was meant to stop censorship or the deleting / correcting of posts.

a publisher now must be accountable for what they post. however, *most* these days do it in very vague terms.

1. according to sources
2. this source said that
3. and you can see why that person is evil

and they lead you along. but at this point it's not supposed to be news but an editorial and clearly listed as such. editorials were usually a major opinion piece from a news source but today, they're a vast majority of what people call "news" and unfortunately, it's not news.

to add to this, we have sites like "the daily beast" that will write up a bucket of shit, make up a lot of accusations and while inflammatory statements and then say "and we found that way over there in that ocean of shit" for a reference in case called on it.

much like asking where mueller said trump was guilty and you get "its in his report" - very vague because they know it's not really there and so few will take the time to go on a scavenger hunt when there will be no way to link what they find to the person who made the statement.

we *all* need to call *any news site* on this crap.

SO -
now that social media is fact checking and publishing their own version of news and history, they are abusing "platform" status of not having to check posts and giving that right to themselves. i post something from a site they don't like - FACT CHECK and gray it out or simply delete it. now you may well like it when it helps you emotionally. we all like to feel vindicated.

but these days, we're seeing the cost of that vindication. if we keep at it, only trusting news that justifies our emotions, it's going to get worse. we're going to allow things like deleting counter thought because that is the next logical step.

and that is what facebook, twitter, google and others are doing with our social media. they are taking the protection of their former platform status and putting it to their publisher ambitions and daring people to do shit about it.

as long as you're emotionally tied to the left, you are likely ok with it. but there always comes a day what you say, feel and in the end, want that will be erased because society finds it of no value to "society" that day.

so when you say there is no real left media bias, i ask you to look back at that chart i provided that names all the publishers and how they lean.

now think of those feeder sites pushing the bullshit from either side so it LOOKS like a lot more.

now get on social media with it.

the right doesn't stand a chance with the censorship going on that only allows left based thought to occur and punishes anything else.

social media is the biggest amplifier of any message out there. you posted your disgust that most people get their news off of facebook. i agree. it's a sad state of affairs.

but since we agree that most people get their news off facebook and social media, and i *hope* we can agree that social media is in fact left based, then yes there is a major bias to the left in our "media".

 

[iceberg]

This is a split from another thread...so as not to derail that thread, but makes for an interesting topic so I thought I would throw it into the ring.

There is no such thing as MSM anymore.


Or...to be more specific there is no such thing as MSM in the way that the rightwing wants to claim.

All media is equal today - from the crappiest blog propaganda sites to well researched journalistic sites. They are all equally accessable (but NOT equally accountable).

The average person gets his news now from where? How many news sources are available at the click of a mouse? The only thing MSM means now...is "traditional" in a media sea.

Our media problems extend far beyond Left/Right.

The majority of out "traditional media" is owned by 5 corporations. Fox is one of the Top Five. That is a very very few owning a lot of our sources for information. When you go outside the "traditional media"...you run into accountability problems. There is no accountability for facts, they can't be sued or held to account. Bloggers, independents - they aren't held to any standard. Traditional media is - because people pay for it and they get pissed. They can also sue.

When the majority of our accountable media is in the hands of FIVE...and the rest runs the gamut from good to crap, with no accountability, we are in a bit of trouble.

We actually should be very worried about this.

we should be. news is slanted to make you feel, not think. stories on both sides are riddled with calling the other side idiots and telling you why people are guilty of what they say which is based on what someone else said, not what was done.

they report on our gossip, not the story.

and this is why people flock to given sites. they support their emotional views, not tell a complete story.

fact checking is pointless and will only stoke the divide.

but this is also why Sect 230 needs to go. people need to be held accountable and this needs to be cleaned up. but how do you do that to a "free press"?

when they were slamming the black doctor last week (demon sperm lady) never once did the daily beast make a direct reference to any claim they made. I call bullshit, people say I am defending her.

not at all. I'm calling bullshit when a "news" story doesn't cute their points of reference.

I then did something and found something truly scary. most of these other sites are simply signal repeaters.

go to daily beast and find their main story. copy 1st paragraph and search for it in quotes. you'll see that same story on a hundred other sites that simply say "as reported by the daily beast."

nothing like having 1 story on a hundred sites to make it look more credible, huh?

when a story relies on you getting emotional, it's a hack job. blog or editorial at best. the problem is so few write news and so many write opinions.

We then post those opinions in here as fact and the fun begins.

we all have a lot of growing up to do.

Well said. What you say about the Daily Beast, I have noticed elsewhere as well, like Brietbart, all coming back to one source that is usually questionable and can't be verified elsewhere.

So...is there a legal difference between those who publish news and those who spread news? Like platforms and publishers in big tech?

brietbart isnt questionable,,,

they are usually pretty straight forward but got railed by the left for not "towing the line" and saying news they didn't approve of. somehow they became "alt-right" because that's what the left loves to do. categorize people into groups of hate and so forth. helps justify the emotions we've been talking about.

if i am wrong - then tell me when the left simply says something like "trump is a dick" or "trump sometimes gets it right" from the left. you never do. anyone who does speak well of trump is suddenly a target from "the left". it's NAZI COMMUNIST. they simply do not know any "medium format" ways to describe people. always extreme.

goyo and the pillow guy for example. then we recently had the CEO of a foundation ending child trafficking that spoke well of trump.

1000 people ended their donations just because of that.

so DO NOT TELL ME the left isn't full of shit around this crap and TDS guides their every move. they work to silence anyone who doesn't say what they approve of and trump is pretty much the poster child for their venom.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The American Press is just a propaganda mill for the Democrats