Black Lives Matter has increased racial tension, 55%

[moxy 1,051]

4 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I not only answered about blogs but I answered about the media burying things. Not liking the answer and trying to force one that appeals to your own biases is what's indefensible but that's the sort of thing the mainstream media does. A fitting dialogue. 

Ok, so your position is that the MSM have abdicated their responsibility to perform good journalism, and that blogs with biased agendas citing information fabricated of whole cloth, feeding their readers a narrative that is bereft of critical thought or factual evidence have "come along to responsibly do journalism." Thanks for clearing your position up sir.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

Ok, so your position is that the MSM have abdicated their responsibility to perform good journalism, and that blogs with biased agendas citing information fabricated of whole cloth, feeding their readers a narrative that is bereft of critical thought or factual evidence have "come along to responsibly do journalism." Thanks for clearing your position up sir.

The incredulity sensed in your post gives off Encino Man vibes like you just stepped from a time machine and seemingly have no clue why the mainstream media is in shambles. It's not something that just happened lately, although it's accelerated quite a bit during Trump's presidency. We're at a point where indeed Daily Kos, Slate, Mother Jones, and so on has the credibility of CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, and so on. It shouldn't be a shock. 

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The incredulity sensed in your post gives off Encino Man vibes like you just stepped from a time machine and seemingly have no clue why the mainstream media is in shambles. It's not something that just happened lately, although it's accelerated quite a bit during Trump's presidency. We're at a point where indeed Daily Kos, Slate, Mother Jones, and so on has the credibility of CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, and so on. It shouldn't be a shock. 

You might note that in my interactions with you, I haven't defended the MSM once. I don't agree with your position on MSM, but I haven't been defending it. All I've been doing is trying to clarify your position that blogs with biased agendas are doing "responsible journalism." But you've done that. You've clarified that you believe biased blogs pushing an agenda are doing "responsible journalism." I don't really have anything else to add.

[laylalex 7,300]

Am I missing something? Where's a defense of biased blogs here as somehow actually dependable sources of news? Is it possible  to have that discussion here without descending into whataboutism? I mean, are we really at a point where everything means nothing so anything goes? That's not a critique of modern journalism, that's nihilism.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

You might note that in my interactions with you, I haven't defended the MSM once. I don't agree with your position on MSM, but I haven't been defending it. All I've been doing is trying to clarify your position that blogs with biased agendas are doing "responsible journalism." But you've done that. You've clarified that you believe biased blogs pushing an agenda are doing "responsible journalism." I don't really have anything else to add.

That very first sentence is a lie. You not only just said you trust the MSM more than anyone else, but you then told people they shouldn't cite anyone else, with an obsessive targeting of" blogs" as if the vast majority of MSM articles aren't this very type.

 

Perfect example happened minutes ago.. I accidentally came by an article showing up on my Home feed from the apparently well respected and very popular mainstream economist and journalist Paul Krugman who writes primarily for the New York Times. In this article he suggests how dangerous it is that Trump and Biden's opposition calls the election illegitimate, and that Democrats and those who opposed Trump never did this after Trump's election. Without pause or irony. Except in a column he wrote himself in 2017 he not only said that very thing, verbatim, about Trump's illegitimacy, but he heaped praise on those Democrats calling Trump illegitimate as "patriotic". Normally one would be outraged at the complete fabrication by a supposedly well respected person writing for a supposedly well respected paper, except this complete inverting of reality happens now on a daily basis so there's no point in getting outraged about a dumpster fire being what it is. The funny thing here is apparently you haven't gotten the memo. 

[Dashinka 24,751]

13 minutes ago, moxy said:

You might note that in my interactions with you, I haven't defended the MSM once. I don't agree with your position on MSM, but I haven't been defending it. All I've been doing is trying to clarify your position that blogs with biased agendas are doing "responsible journalism." But you've done that. You've clarified that you believe biased blogs pushing an agenda are doing "responsible journalism." I don't really have anything else to add.

Actually, you did in your first post on this topic.  I tend to agree with you that when a piece offers the sources so they can be scrutinized themselves I put more trust in news outlets, blogs, etc.  It is often hard to find a MSM outlet like NYTimes, or WaPo offering anything more than unnamed anonymous source for many of their "news" pieces and the same can be said of the likes of CNN, MSNBC, etc.  One of the best sourced writers I see today is John Solomon who has no problems with laying out his sources, and Glenn Greenwald is also quite good.  Of course when a piece from either of these writers is posted, we get the same response from some members here. 

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

That very first sentence is a lie. You not only just said you trust the MSM more than anyone else, but you then told people they shouldn't cite anyone else, with an obsessive targeting of" blogs" as if the vast majority of MSM articles aren't this very type.

You really need to read critically. I said "in my interactions with you, I haven't defended the MSM once."

Just now, Dashinka said:

Actually, you did in your first post on this topic.  I tend to agree with you that when a piece offers the sources so they can be scrutinized themselves I put more trust in news outlets, blogs, etc.  It is often hard to find a MSM outlet like NYTimes, or WaPo offering anything more than unnamed anonymous source for many of their "news" pieces and the same can be said of the likes of CNN, MSNBC, etc.  One of the best sourced writers I see today is John Solomon who has no problems with laying out his sources, and Glenn Greenwald is also quite good.  Of course when a piece from either of these writers is posted, we get the same response from some members here. 

In my interactions with Burnt, I have not defended the MSM.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

You really need to read critically. I said "in my interactions with you, I haven't defended the MSM once."

You said you haven't been defending it.. not only were you clearly defending it but you were obsessively attacking a competing source of information and opinion. That's the lie I described. 

[Dashinka 24,751]

19 minutes ago, moxy said:

You really need to read critically. I said "in my interactions with you, I haven't defended the MSM once."

In my interactions with Burnt, I have not defended the MSM.

Well, your first post on this topic started the dialogue, so it is relevant.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Well, your first post on this topic started the dialogue, so it is relevant.

You guys can perform whatever gymnastics you want to convince yourselves you're own teh libz, but it's disingenuous and silly.

 

Doesn't matter, Burnt answered my question. Burnt holds that biased blogs pushing an agenda and making up "facts" out of whole cloth are doing "responsible journalism." That's all I was really after.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Just now, Dashinka said:

Well, your first post on this topic started the dialogue, so it is relevant.

We didn't even get to the "fact checkers".. 

 

All this inverting of reality would be funny if it weren't for the censorship efforts by people in the mainstream media. To further that first point, how they liken Trump's making fun of them as attacks on free speech/press while they dehumanize other journalists (actually try to get them de-platformed or promote them being attacked/killed) because they're upset people are increasingly looking elsewhere for information. Watching how the media handles their comeuppance is an affirmation of its underpinning and why it'll only escalate. They don't learn lessons very well. 

[Dashinka 24,751]

4 minutes ago, moxy said:

You guys can perform whatever gymnastics you want to convince yourselves you're own teh libz, but it's disingenuous and silly.

 

Doesn't matter, Burnt answered my question. Burnt holds that biased blogs pushing an agenda and making up "facts" out of whole cloth are doing "responsible journalism." That's all I was really after.

And you answered the question that you believe the MSM outlets doing "sourced" stories as being trustworthy even with the plethora of evidence against that hypothesis.  Btw, I never saw the NYTimes printing any corrections regarding the Russian Collusion hoax they helped perpetuate,

 

3 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

We didn't even get to the "fact checkers".. 

 

All this inverting of reality would be funny if it weren't for the censorship efforts by people in the mainstream media. To further that first point, how they liken Trump's making fun of them as attacks on free speech/press while they dehumanize other journalists (actually try to get them de-platformed or promote them being attacked/killed) because they're upset people are increasingly looking elsewhere for information. Watching how the media handles their comeuppance is an affirmation of its underpinning and why it'll only escalate. They don't learn lessons very well. 

The "fact checkers" are too busy fact checking the Babylon Bee.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

14 minutes ago, moxy said:

You guys can perform whatever gymnastics you want to convince yourselves you're own teh libz, but it's disingenuous and silly.

 

Doesn't matter, Burnt answered my question. Burnt holds that biased blogs pushing an agenda and making up "facts" out of whole cloth are doing "responsible journalism." That's all I was really after.

In that noted Krugman example two sources I found in seconds that factually cited his hypocrisy was Breitbart and Washington Examiner. This sort of thing has repeated hundreds to thousands of times since the Bush era. Could replace Breitbart or Washington Examiner with Wikileaks, Guerrilla News Network (GNN), Palmer Report, The Intercept, etc. The differentiated demand from elsewhere speaks to the lack of quality from the MSM. While you obsess about the blog medium in specificity it includes social media and other types of citizen journalism.. Andy Ngo's for example. This being a journalist the mainstream media has tried to censor and has advocated violence against him. This is the mainstream media, and may it rest in peace. 

 

Coding classes are pretty cheap now I hear. 👍

Edited December 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

9 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

And you answered the question that you believe the MSM outlets doing "sourced" stories as being trustworthy even with the plethora of evidence against that hypothesis.  Btw, I never saw the NYTimes printing any corrections regarding the Russian Collusion hoax they helped perpetuate,

 

The "fact checkers" are too busy fact checking the Babylon Bee.

Nuance is neither of your best qualities. There might be a Udemy course you could take to help you read more critically.

 

My position on the MSM has not changed. To be clear, traditional news organizations get it mostly right. When they get it wrong, they typically correct. When they don't correct, they are held to account by other organizations. It's a system that works most of the time. Sometimes it doesn't. But to say that they've all fallen into some kind of bizarre alternate reality is to just sheepishly press the "I believe" button that Mr. Trump and his buddies has set before you.

 

I was not arguing my views on the MSM when I tried to have a conversation with Burnt, because I am an adult and I can set aside my own point of views in order to further a conversation. But again, if you want to do a circus gymnastic performance just to be able to own the libz, hey whatever gives you that little shot of dopamine. Maybe I'll setup a OnlyFans channel where you can pay to watch me cry at my keyboard at getting owned so hard.

 

The reason the NYT never retracted the Russian collusion story is because there is nothing to retract. Connections between the Trump campaign and agents of the Russian government during the 2016 election are well documented by the Special Counsel and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. Maybe you should ask why the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't issued a retraction.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Nuance is neither of your best qualities. There might be a Udemy course you could take to help you read more critically.

 

My position on the MSM has not changed. To be clear, traditional news organizations get it mostly right. When they get it wrong, they typically correct. When they don't correct, they are held to account by other organizations. It's a system that works most of the time. Sometimes it doesn't. But to say that they've all fallen into some kind of bizarre alternate reality is to just sheepishly press the "I believe" button that Mr. Trump and his buddies has set before you.

 

I was not arguing my views on the MSM when I tried to have a conversation with Burnt, because I am an adult and I can set aside my own point of views in order to further a conversation. But again, if you want to do a circus gymnastic performance just to be able to own the libz, hey whatever gives you that little shot of dopamine. Maybe I'll setup a OnlyFans channel where you can pay to watch me cry at my keyboard at getting owned so hard.

 

The reason the NYT never retracted the Russian collusion story is because there is nothing to retract. Connections between the Trump campaign and agents of the Russian government during the 2016 election are well documented by the Special Counsel and the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. Maybe you should ask why the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't issued a retraction.

They're so well documented they couldn't charge any American for colluding with the Russians. It was just that obvious. 😂