GSG Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Just now, Nebfanatic said: Why does the Fox news clip not play on here? WORKS FINE FOR ME Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 9 minutes ago, GSG said: WORKS FINE FOR ME I have to go to youtube as it says fox news isn't allowed by some websites and applications. I thought it was some ploy by Fox to play the victim card lmao Link to comment
commando Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 well...if he was bullied by anti gunners i guess it makes it alt right Link to comment
HS_Coach_C Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 9 minutes ago, commando said: well...if he was bullied by anti gunners i guess it makes it alt right I guess I don't follow tons of news outlets, but I haven't seen that story at all. Link to comment
funhusker Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 21 minutes ago, HS_Coach_C said: I guess I don't follow tons of news outlets, but I haven't seen that story at all. The whole "walk up, not out" was built upon this thought process. Link to comment
HS_Coach_C Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 1 minute ago, funhusker said: The whole "walk up, not out" was built upon this thought process. Ah, okay. I don't think that's a terrible mission, but trying to justify or defend Cruz's actions is stupid. I think the "walk up, not out" mission can help prevent more teen suicides, and possibly recognize mentally troubled kids, but it won't stop all school shootings. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) Already said it here but many of the people parroting the "don't bully kids and they won't shoot schools up" (because it can't possibly have anything to do with gun access) are the same ones that call people politically correct snowflakes who need to grow a pair. They're seem perfectly fine with minorities, gay people, and non-Christians being bullied. Edited March 30, 2018 by Moiraine Link to comment
Enhance Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 On 3/29/2018 at 1:32 PM, BigRedBuster said: What a piece of crap...."in the spirit of the Holy Week". Facing boycott, Laura Ingraham apologizes for taunting Parkland teen over college rejections I read a take on this last week that I found pretty interesting. I'll try to track down the article and share it below in this post. For starters, the editorial lambasted Ingraham for her comments and Fox News for posturing that kind of behavior from its talent. It categorically condemned her decision. But, the writer also said they didn't like the message Hogg sent, that if you happen to disagree with something "reported" in the media (I use that term loosely of course because, in this case, Ingraham was more of an opinionated talking head than anything else) you can try to silence that media outlet by shaming its advertisers into pulling dollars. In this case, few are supporting Ingraham's message of course, but that doesn't mean the first thing people should do when they don't like something they see is go after a media outlet's funding. Anyways, I found some common understanding with that editorial. I don't feel bad for Ingraham that Hogg went after her bottom line because what she said was stupid, but, what Hogg did also doesn't sit super well with me despite my ardent dislike for Fox News. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Enhance said: I read a take on this last week that I found pretty interesting. I'll try to track down the article and share it below in this post. For starters, the editorial lambasted Ingraham for her comments and Fox News for posturing that kind of behavior from its talent. It categorically condemned her decision. But, the writer also said they didn't like the message Hogg sent, that if you happen to disagree with something "reported" in the media (I use that term loosely of course because, in this case, Ingraham was more of an opinionated talking head than anything else) you can try to silence that media outlet by shaming its advertisers into pulling dollars. In this case, few are supporting Ingraham's message of course, but that doesn't mean the first thing people should do when they don't like something they see is go after a media outlet's funding. Anyways, I found some common understanding with that editorial. I don't feel bad for Ingraham that Hogg went after her bottom line because what she said was stupid, but, what Hogg did also doesn't sit super well with me despite my ardent dislike for Fox News. I posted this in another thread and maybe you didn't see it. It mentions basically what you are talking about. But...here's what bothers me about your comments, and the editorial you read, and this tweet. The media is not supposed to have "sides". Laura Ingram was not being the NEWS media. She was being an opinion mouth piece. What I believe the tweet I posted here and other comments show is the blurred lines between actual news reporting and yelling opinions across the airways. That is a major problem in America right now. People don't distinguish between the two. I would have a problem if an actual news cast came on TV and reported something factual that someone didn't like and there were people who organized a boycott of the advertisers. I do NOT have a problem with an opinion talking head blabbing something offensive and someone didn't like it and organized a boycott of the advertisers. Hopefully people see the difference. Edited April 3, 2018 by BigRedBuster 2 Link to comment
Enhance Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 43 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I posted this in another thread and maybe you didn't see it. It mentions basically what you are talking about. But...here's what bothers me about your comments, and the editorial you read, and this tweet. The media is not supposed to have "sides". Laura Ingram was not being the NEWS media. She was being an opinion mouth piece. What I believe the tweet I posted here and other comments show is the blurred lines between actual news reporting and yelling opinions across the airways. That is a major problem in America right now. People don't distinguish between the two. I would have a problem if an actual news cast came on TV and reported something factual that someone didn't like and there were people who organized a boycott of the advertisers. I do NOT have a problem with an opinion talking head blabbing something offensive and someone didn't like it and organized a boycott of the advertisers. Hopefully people see the difference. I don't really disagree with any of that (just to be clear, I did state "...Ingraham was more of an opinionated talking head than anything else" because I too believe it's important to distinguish between 'journalism' and the other BS). My issue is more with precedent and escalation as you pointed out. Could a factual piece of journalism be a target next? That said, the last time someone went after a Fox News' anchor's advertisers, it involved sexual harassment. This time it involves someone's ill-advised comments about grades. That's a fairly huge discrepancy. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Enhance said: My issue is more with precedent and escalation as you pointed out. Could a factual piece of journalism be a target next? President Trump vs. The Media. I agree that this should be a concern. However, so far, the public and advertisers have, for the most part, been able to ascertain the difference between the President's attack on CNN's factual reporting and asking people to boycott it (which they haven't done in mass) and Hogg calling out Ingram and her advertisers. It's something we should alway be cognizant of. But, so far, it hasn't been an issue that I can see. Edited April 3, 2018 by BigRedBuster 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 How the rest of the world sees America's gun addiction. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/us/trauma-surgeon-youtube-hq-shooting/index.html This surgeon has a great point. If the media were to go crazy, like breaking into regular programming, with each act of gun violence, people would get sick of it in a hurry. There was no reason for the media to cover the YouTube shooting yesterday that claimed one life (by suicide) if they weren't willing to hold a press conference for other shootings that take place every single day that claim just as many lives if not more. Many people think gun violence is out of control because of the way media covers it 24/7, they have no idea...... Edited April 4, 2018 by funhusker 2 Link to comment
Landlord Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 On 4/3/2018 at 8:45 AM, Enhance said: I don't feel bad for Ingraham that Hogg went after her bottom line because what she said was stupid, but, what Hogg did also doesn't sit super well with me despite my ardent dislike for Fox News. I agree with you, but also don't care, because one is an adult who is supposedly a professional journalist, and the other is a kid in high school. Link to comment
Recommended Posts