Censorship

Guy Chamberlin said:
Well, yeah.

If your life depended on it -- and maybe it does -- do you believe the "news" from Walter Cronkite and the Washington Post, or from an X blogger linking you to excerpts from Joe Rogan and InfoWars?
Click to expand...
Depends on if it’s a solid WAPO reporter or if it’s the WAPO editorial board.  Could be a big difference between the two 

 
Archy1221 said:
Depends on if it’s a solid WAPO reporter or if it’s the WAPO editorial board.  Could be a big difference between the two 
Click to expand...


Historically that has always been made clear. Rarely a big difference. You might be thinking about the recent big difference between the WAPO owner, his editorial board, and his reporters. 

What's the most egregious statement of non-fact you can recall from the WAPO editorial board?

 
I've been really happy with my Ground News subscription, for what it's worth. Shows you blind spots in reporting across political ideology, and helps you sort through the political leanings and factuality scores of multiple different sources on any news story.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I'm pretty sure I can't call you a piece of s#!t right here without getting a warning or ban.

Over in the Shed you and I have both partaken in livelier insults.  
Click to expand...
You would be correct as far as I understand the rules, however, I have read the Republican Party are pieces of s#!t, or some version of that in P&R.   Derogatory remarks towards Trump voters being brain dead, or some version of that.  
 

Now, could you call me “it” and not get a nasty gram here?  

Guy Chamberlin said:
By the way, did you ever vet your recent posts from those gatekeepers of fact Sunny and The Rabbit Hole? 
Click to expand...
Yes

 
BigRedBuster said:
Let's say we used to get 7 hours of "news" per week.  90% was good and 10% was bad.  That 7 hours was from very structured news media that took it's time (relatively speaking) to formulate a story with regulations on how to do it.

Now, "news" that is broadcasted in some fashion is  168 hours per week and 50% good and 50% bad.  However, That is from a gazillion different sources and you choose to only watch 7 hours of whatever validates your biases.

Just because we are getting more, doesn't mean it's better.  Now, there is more good than before.  But, it's mixed in with so much crap that it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Good analysis. 

Another problem is that the burden on 24/7 news networks, and now the digital platforms, is to create content constantly. This means the vast majority of time is spent having talking heads and self-promoting influencers speculate on what might have happened or is likely to happen, rather than waiting for boots on the ground reporting to collect and vet the necessary sources.

Also, speculating costs a lot less than reporting. 

 
teachercd said:
Because we have.  For 300 years we have gotten our news from other people.   Unless you were the one there witnessing it, you got it from other people.  
Click to expand...


But I'm pretty sure we all agreed it's not the same way at all.

If were talking about getting news from other people, that dates back to the Neolithic era. 

 
Archy1221 said:
You would be correct as far as I understand the rules, however, I have read the Republican Party are pieces of s#!t, or some version of that in P&R.   Derogatory remarks towards Trump voters being brain dead, or some version of that.  
 
Click to expand...


Got it. I misread your original post. Yes, the P&R board allows blanket insults to unnamed followers of ideologies. It just can't get personal, even though we all know the poster is lumping us in with the pieces of s#!t who excuse the awfulness of Donald Trump or the godless haters who spew equity and inclusion. 

 
Lorewarn said:
I've been really happy with my Ground News subscription, for what it's worth. Shows you blind spots in reporting across political ideology, and helps you sort through the political leanings and factuality scores of multiple different sources on any news story.
Click to expand...


Ground News? That's a new one. I'll look into it.

This reminds me of another problem with digital news. If someone wants me to actually pay for higher quality reporting I'm likely to abandon the site. I'm still stuck in the original appeal of the internet, where everything is free.

I'm slowly vetting my choices and picking my spots. 

 
Back
Top