Jump to content


Media Bias


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Agree although but honestly cannot say for sure about Musk and a person of color. Interesting...

That was a joke, but I still don't think I've ever seen it lol 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, ZRod said:

That was a joke, but I still don't think I've ever seen it lol 

I haven’t. So is it really a joke?  Or, did you type it as a joke, but somewhere in an alternate universe, you really realize this is true. 
 

Or….maybe Jamison Irish Whiskey is making me over think things. 
 

The world may never know. 

  • Oh Yeah! 1
Link to comment

We know Musk accused a guy of being a pedophile because he refused Musk's unsolicited offer of assistance.

 

We know Musk donated batteries to Ukraine to help in their defense effort, and before that to Texas (and other places) to help stabilize their power grid.

 

He's kind of all over the place. Hard guy to pin down.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I haven’t. So is it really a joke?  Or, did you type it as a joke, but somewhere in an alternate universe, you really realize this is true. 
 

Or….maybe Jamison Irish Whiskey is making me over think things. 
 

The world may never know. 

Chicken or the egg?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

If Republicans would like people to stop complaining about their ties to white supremacists, maybe they should stop palling around with... white supremacists.

 

Why does the simplest answer have to be so damn hard for some people?

I think your answer is correct. If you dont want to be labled, watch your associates, but also feel that in the D playbook, way too many people are falsely accused.

  • Plus1 1
  • Oh Yeah! 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I think your answer is correct. If you dont want to be labled, watch your associates, but also feel that in the D playbook, way too many people are falsely accused.

 

You're not wrong, there are those who are way too happy to start throwing labels around and they don't help their own purpose.

 

Still, I'm far more concerned about the rapid, demonstrable radicalization of one of the two political parties in our system. At the same time, they deflect by claiming it's the other team that's increasingly radical. But they're just not.

 

The ones talking about banning birth control, embracing white supremacists and ignoring or overturning election results they don't like are decidedly more alarming, at least to me. Seems like a good chunk of voters are more concerned about wokeism.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

We live in a world where we can "both sides" these two things:

 

  1. Accusation of being a White Supremacist
  2. Being a White Supremacist, using White Supremacist sources for information, being supported by White Supremacists, or turning a blind eye to the actions of White Supremacists

 

One of these two is a mistake. The other is a clear and present threat to this country. Let's stop acting like they're the same thing.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, knapplc said:

We live in a world where we can "both sides" these two things:

 

  1. Accusation of being a White Supremacist
  2. Being a White Supremacist, using White Supremacist sources for information, being supported by White Supremacists, or turning a blind eye to the actions of White Supremacists

 

One of these two is a mistake. The other is a clear and present threat to this country. Let's stop acting like they're the same thing.

I don't think anyone is acting like they are the same thing, but when words are overused it takes away the power of their meaning.

 

In the case of Musk, probably overused. In the case of the GOP, they sure aren't doing much to deny it...

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, ZRod said:

I don't think anyone is acting like they are the same thing, but when words are overused it takes away the power of their meaning.

 

 

This is true, but also inevitable. It applies to over-labeling right-wing figures as white supremacists as much as it applies to commentators calling teams or players 'great' or 'elite' in sports, as much as it applies to conservatives whining about snowflakes and safe spaces.

 

But just in case the reason for this current side tangent isn't clear to anyone, here's how it happened:

 

1. Libs of TikTok draws attention to a PRIDE/drag queen event in North Carolina

 

2. The mayor of that town cancels the event after "feedback received from citizens", including plenty of hate/harassment/threats.

 

3. Dave Reilly, who lives in Idaho, who marched in Charlottesville, has tweeted things like “All Jews are dangerous” and "Example #109 of why suffrage was a mistake:", and has organized with Identity Evropa (an unapologetic Neo-Nazi group), saw this and then asked Libs of TikTok to "do this one next!", linking to an upcoming PRIDE event in whatever french name town idaho. This was June 2.

 

4. The Idaho Tribune, which is...generously speaking not a real news organization, tweets about the event. "They" whoever they are (they often amplify Dave Reilly's content, and are based in the town the event is happening in). This was June 6.

 

5. There's good reason to suspect that David Reilly's website and the Idaho Tribune website are owned by the same person.

 

6. One day later, Libs of TikTok (the owner of which lives in New York) starts posting about the Idaho PRIDE event.

 

7. Two days later, Libs of TikTok shares Idaho Tribune screenshots.

 

8. 31 members of the Patriot Front white supremacist group are arrested in the back of a UHaul on their way to the Idaho PRIDE event.

 

 

9. @Archy1221 comes in and claims that some people are calling Libs of TikTok lady a white supremacist because she reposts videos, despite the fact that nobody actually called her a white supremacist, and if they did it's clearly not because she reposts videos.

 

 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

On 6/14/2022 at 11:00 AM, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

Just quoting you Devo but the following isn't targeted at you, FYI.

 

When I was a journalist, I had "unauthorized contacts" with law enforcement officials/government agencies and off-the-record conversations every single day. I know a lot of things I shouldn't technically know. Sometimes these meetings were at restaurants/bars or over coffee, but they were usually over the phone.

 

That's because, in the eyes of PR people, public information officers, and leadership, any time you don't go through the song and dance of getting approval from them, they get all pissy. They always want to control the narrative and prevent anything that makes them look bad. People seem to be grateful for a journalist's work when it ousts something important, but based on some of those Twitter comments, I can tell some people see this as a "gotcha!" moment that is really isn't... at least not to the degree they want to make it.

 

So, part of what this article is outlining is just part of being a journalist. We're encouraged and taught to do that in order to build rapport with sources, get the jump on stories, etc. In the VAST majority of cases, the relationship is productive, and most of what is talked about does not at all negatively impact investigations. Most of what is talked about is also not reported. If this kind of stuff didn't happen then journalists wouldn't be good watchdogs.

 

I can't endorse stuff like the payola/plugola stuff in that article. That's unethical. But I would safely wager most of these 'unauthorized contacts' are just upset PR people being upset PR people.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Enhance said:

Just quoting you Devo but the following isn't targeted at you, FYI.

 

When I was a journalist, I had "unauthorized contacts" with law enforcement officials/government agencies and off-the-record conversations every single day. I know a lot of things I shouldn't technically know. Sometimes these meetings were at restaurants/bars or over coffee, but they were usually over the phone.

 

That's because, in the eyes of PR people, public information officers, and leadership, any time you don't go through the song and dance of getting approval from them, they get all pissy. They always want to control the narrative and prevent anything that makes them look bad. People seem to be grateful for a journalist's work when it ousts something important, but based on some of those Twitter comments, I can tell some people see this as a "gotcha!" moment that is really isn't... at least not to the degree they want to make it.

 

So, part of what this article is outlining is just part of being a journalist. We're encouraged and taught to do that in order to build rapport with sources, get the jump on stories, etc. In the VAST majority of cases, the relationship is productive, and most of what is talked about does not at all negatively impact investigations. Most of what is talked about is also not reported. If this kind of stuff didn't happen then journalists wouldn't be good watchdogs.

 

I can't endorse stuff like the payola/plugola stuff in that article. That's unethical. But I would safely wager most of these 'unauthorized contacts' are just upset PR people being upset PR people.

Question: if most of what you’re told isn’t reported, why is it important you’re told?

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
  • Create New...