Random News not worthy of own thread

[fiksal]

Anyways, seems Vladimir Solovyov offered* Mr. Carlson a position on Russian TV. Kinda telling...

*Source:
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia- ... ?r=US&IR=T

pfffffhaa I almost spilled my beer


he really should live in Russia

[mr.WHO]

Anyways, seems Vladimir Solovyov offered* Mr. Carlson a position on Russian TV. Kinda telling...

As telling as Merkel recently getting medal for germano-ruso collaboration?
Or former Germany chancellor having a nice cozy job at Gazprom (and still be a member of major german political party)?

And you are beating this straw-man because? Was Carlson personal hero of yours or something?

For the left Carlson is some kind of anti-Christ, while for the right is a savior.
The truth is that the prime time vieweship for Fox/Carlson is about 2 milion on average, which is one of the best.
Except that for a country of 330 milion, it's not bad, it's not abyssmal, it's below statistical error.
A dozen or so mid-tier Youtubers have better ranges and viewship than entire Fox.
Cable News Networks were fading into obscurity for years. They would fade even faster, if Youtube wouldn't artificially boost them.
If only I could get 1$, for every time YT try to shove down my throat a video with Dumbfounded Carlson or Dissapointed Lemon in a thumbnail.
Not to mention, all of those TV personal doesn't even write their text/question, they are talking heads reading the teleprompter.
like Piers Morgan doing 180 on his talking points every time he change TV station. every. single. time.


Meanwhile
Insurance companies extending insurance on Nord Stream 2 is not telling at all.
Porshe CEO saying they are ready to immediately resume business and production in Russia at first possible moment - nope, not telling.
Hundreds of western companies still doing business in Russia - not telling.
Multi billion dollar corporations walking on CCP tight leash - not telling.
Majority of billionares balls deep in chinese money (E. Musk included) - not telling.
Legions of political and business figures in power, eagerly waiting till they can resume sucking Putin and Xi pipes - not telling.

Yet, somehow Russian TV clown saying something about US TV clown is telling everything.

Something something straw-man.

[Warenwolf]

As telling as Merkel recently getting medal for germano-ruso collaboration?
Or former Germany chancellor having a nice cozy job at Gazprom (and still be a member of major german political party)?

And you are beating this straw-man because? Was Carlson personal hero of yours or something?

For the left Carlson is some kind of anti-Christ, while for the right is a savior.

(bunch of random claims with dash of moving goalposts follows)

But that has nothing to do with my comment now does it? Did I ever sing praises to Porche CEO on this forum in any context whatsoever? So yeah - straw-men argumentation.

PS: Youtube algorithm works based on your preferences and search history. You get Tucker Carlson, I get Bill Burr podcast.

Lavrov also weighted in on Tucker Carlson's leaving Fox News:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityar ... 2e8f5169da

[mr.WHO]

But that has nothing to do with my comment now does it? Did I ever sing praises to Porche CEO on this forum in any context whatsoever? So yeah - straw-men argumentation.

PS: Youtube algorithm works based on your preferences and search history. You get Tucker Carlson, I get Bill Burr podcast.

Lavrov also weighted in on Tucker Carlson's leaving Fox News:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityar ... 2e8f5169da

Well, to wrap it up - my point is that Tucker drama is a disctraction, while in the same time people in power are doing exactly the same of what they are pitching at him.

Still even if we indulge the thought that Tucker would take Russian pill, carve big "Z" on his forehead and start praising Putin to high heaven, how relevant it will be?
I'm quite confident it would put him on the level of relevance of Steven Segal and Gérard Depardieu.

In a few years, Tucker fire from Fox will most probably considered final chapter in collapse of Cable News and turning them to slightly more ambitious AI VTuber network.

[felter]

Let's be real, if you want to hear the news you don't go to Fox News as about the only thing they have about the news is their name. As for their viewer numbers being so low, it's because they are a cable only and not everyone has cable and not everyone watches cable, but their numbers are pretty high for a cable (so called) news Chanel. I would say the same for the others too like CNN or MSNBC, but I do sometimes go to them to find out what Trump has been up to recently, but most certainly not for the news. Probably the best place to get American news is from the late night chat shows, Seth Myers is pretty good as he takes the piss out of anyone not just Trump, though Trump gets more than his fair share, mainly due to him being a total idiot and asking for it more than most.

As for YouTube, that is a mess of a place the so-called algorithm certainly doesn't work, especially not the way Warenwolf just said, you just have to look at my recommended page to see that as it is full of recommendations of people I would never watch. Right now there are several recommendations for Logan Paul, Sideman and their prime drink, not interested, and I have never been interested in any of them. As for news channels, like I said I sometimes go to CNN and MSNBC, but there is no recommendation for them, but for some reason I do get Fox recommended and I have never been on their site, but right now I keep getting GBNews recommended to me, once again never had anything to do with them or want anything to do with them. I sometimes listen to LBC as I like James O'Brien as I agree with a lot of what he says, never recommended, I watch a lot of woodworking and maker videos like Bourbon Moth Woodworking or Nick Zammeti or metal detecting like Green Mountain Metal Detecting or Aquachigger, and they are never recommended or even channels like them. Nope, YouTube algorithm is broken or more likely made to throw out certain videos more than others even if you are interested in them or not, probably it leans more towards what makes YouTube more money than anything else.

[mr.WHO]

Felter is right and Warenwolf WAS right.

Up until a few months ago YT was quite sane and reliable in pitching me the things I like consistently.
However since then it's getting worse and worse, sometimes outright crazy.

Like me clicking cute cat video...Youtube wakes up - might I interest you in maimed, malnourished animals tearing eachother apart?
Seriously, that was the moment I started to think something is going horribly wrong at YouTube.

[Observe]

I'll sometimes go to Fox News for an opposing view if I doubt what I'm getting from the liberal media. I don't take any of them at face value, more like a grain of salt. My trust in the left is no greater than my trust in the right. They are all catering to their viewers - seldom to the actual truth. The more controversial the subject, the more biased is their propaganda.

[Warenwolf]

Well, to wrap it up - my point is that Tucker drama is a disctraction, while in the same time people in power are doing exactly the same of what they are pitching at him.

Still even if we indulge the thought that Tucker would take Russian pill, carve big "Z" on his forehead and start praising Putin to high heaven, how relevant it will be?
I'm quite confident it would put him on the level of relevance of Steven Segal and Gérard Depardieu.

Yeah....right...

Claiming Tucker Carlson drama is distraction is one thing (i think it is an entertaining conspiracy theory but nothing else) but coming to THAT conclusion from starting with the below post is bit of of moving goal posts but whatever.

Anyways, seems Vladimir Solovyov offered* Mr. Carlson a position on Russian TV. Kinda telling...

As telling as Merkel recently getting medal for germano-ruso collaboration?
Or former Germany chancellor having a nice cozy job at Gazprom (and still be a member of major german political party)?

As what influence Tucker Carlson would have if he went full Putin in lets say Russia Today? No idea. He was/is counted among the most influential voices among certain type of GOP voters but I am not a gambling man. I think anyone dismissing him as irrelevant has little understanding of current US politics.

That being said, he went full Putin long before the war in Ukraine started. He may not have painted Z on himself - everything else - he kinda already did. That is why Kremlin loved the guy. This took me seconds to find (I am not even going to link to most famous speech he had about Putin before the war):

Tucker: Zelenskyy is demanding you send your kids to war:
https://youtu.be/qG8uLFHJWVE

Tucker's warning if Ukraine war continues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7I5mrWipls

[felter]

I'll sometimes go to Fox News for an opposing view if I doubt what I'm getting from the liberal media. I don't take any of them at face value, more like a grain of salt. My trust in the left is no greater than my trust in the right. They are all catering to their viewers - seldom to the actual truth. The more controversial the subject, the more biased is their propaganda.

That's the thing you go there for a view, where do you actually go for your news, most of us link to the BBC for a reason.

[Observe]

I'll sometimes go to Fox News for an opposing view if I doubt what I'm getting from the liberal media. I don't take any of them at face value, more like a grain of salt. My trust in the left is no greater than my trust in the right. They are all catering to their viewers - seldom to the actual truth. The more controversial the subject, the more biased is their propaganda.

That's the thing you go there for a view, where do you actually go for your news, most of us link to the BBC for a reason.

I tend to go to BBC daily. If it's something controversial, or political, I'll typicallly check out BBC, CNN, sometimes Al Jazeera, Google News (which represents multiple outlets). Admittedly, I'm not much of a news connoisseur as I generally stick to fairly mainstream media.

[Gavrushka]

I'll sometimes go to Fox News for an opposing view if I doubt what I'm getting from the liberal media. I don't take any of them at face value, more like a grain of salt. My trust in the left is no greater than my trust in the right. They are all catering to their viewers - seldom to the actual truth. The more controversial the subject, the more biased is their propaganda.

That's the thing you go there for a view, where do you actually go for your news, most of us link to the BBC for a reason.

I tend to go to BBC daily. If it's something controversial, or political, I'll typicallly check out BBC, CNN, sometimes Al Jazeera, Google News (which represents multiple outlets). Admittedly, I'm not much of a news connoisseur as I generally stick to fairly mainstream media.

I'd add France 24 to that list. I've long since accepted that using any single source leads to a viewers' bias, usually unconscious. - But I am not sure any non-partisan viewer would seek to take any truth from FOX *BUT* maybe that's also my views skewed from other non-friendly sources lambasting them. - And is there no regulator in the US to make sure broadcasters adhere to reasonable standards? I've the feeling it's simply down to injured party litigation as a preventative, but by that time the damage is long done, and the false truth embedded in the target audience.

[Vertigo 7]

That's the thing you go there for a view, where do you actually go for your news, most of us link to the BBC for a reason.

I tend to go to BBC daily. If it's something controversial, or political, I'll typicallly check out BBC, CNN, sometimes Al Jazeera, Google News (which represents multiple outlets). Admittedly, I'm not much of a news connoisseur as I generally stick to fairly mainstream media.

I'd add France 24 to that list. I've long since accepted that using any single source leads to a viewers' bias, usually unconscious. - But I am not sure any non-partisan viewer would seek to take any truth from FOX *BUT* maybe that's also my views skewed from other non-friendly sources lambasting them. - And is there no regulator in the US to make sure broadcasters adhere to reasonable standards? I've the feeling it's simply down to injured party litigation as a preventative, but by that time the damage is long done, and the false truth embedded in the target audience.

No, there's no regulation of the press in the US. 1st amendment guarantees a "free press", but that also isn't a license for libel or slander. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the only remediation is civil litigation. Perhaps there does need to be some criminal penalties as well to serve as a deterrent...

[Gavrushka]

I tend to go to BBC daily. If it's something controversial, or political, I'll typicallly check out BBC, CNN, sometimes Al Jazeera, Google News (which represents multiple outlets). Admittedly, I'm not much of a news connoisseur as I generally stick to fairly mainstream media.

I'd add France 24 to that list. I've long since accepted that using any single source leads to a viewers' bias, usually unconscious. - But I am not sure any non-partisan viewer would seek to take any truth from FOX *BUT* maybe that's also my views skewed from other non-friendly sources lambasting them. - And is there no regulator in the US to make sure broadcasters adhere to reasonable standards? I've the feeling it's simply down to injured party litigation as a preventative, but by that time the damage is long done, and the false truth embedded in the target audience.

No, there's no regulation of the press in the US. 1st amendment guarantees a "free press", but that also isn't a license for libel or slander. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the only remediation is civil litigation. Perhaps there does need to be some criminal penalties as well to serve as a deterrent...

In the UK, an independent adjudicator, OFCOM, would simply remove the broadcaster's licence to broadcast. The end. No more faux news in an instant. I can't imagine anyone making a valid case for it to be otherwise.

[Vertigo 7]

Could they do that if the 'news' was privately owned/ran? As I understand it, BBC is owned by the government, ya?

[CBJ]

Yes, they can. And no, the BBC is not "owned" by the government. Its status is slightly complicated to explain, but it is not "state media" in the sense you'd normally think of that term.

[Observe]

I see that ABC News interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The problem I see in this case, is that ABC chose to edit out parts of the interview having to do with covid vaccines. Instead, ABC inserted their own editorial comments with the standard cut-and-paste official party-line on the subject. Why bother interviewing someone, who is a known vaccine skeptic, if you cut out the pieces that define them?

If you are going to interview a Presidential candidate, shouldn't it be up to the voters to decide whether or not the candidate has merit? Is this how democracy looks like?

[Warenwolf]

Could they do that if the 'news' was privately owned/ran? As I understand it, BBC is owned by the government, ya?

Not only that they can but they have already done that just recently:

Ofcom revoked the Russian-backed television channel RT’s licence to broadcast in the UK with immediate effect. The decision made it almost impossible for it to return to the country’s airwaves. RT faced 29 investigations by Ofcom into specific breaches of British impartiality rules over its coverage of the war in Ukraine.

source:
https://ipi.media/alerts/ofcom-revokes- ... v-channel/

Murdoch's Fox News also got almost fined but avoided it due to stopping their broadcasts in UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/ ... fcom-finds

[Vertigo 7]

well then if the US were to institute similar laws, sounds like it'd work for me. would need some guardrails to keep em from using the laws to punish news outlets they don't agree with.

[felter]

So it's believed they have found the reason for Carlson's sacking, turns out it was a racist text he sent that FOX bosses didn't get to see until the night before their agreement in the defamation lawsuit due to the text message being redacted, makes you wonder what the rest of the redacted text messages he sent say. Anyway, if you haven't seen it:

“It was three against one, at least,” Carlson wrote to the unidentified producer. “Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it.” Soon after, “an alarm went off” in his brain, Carlson added, telling his producer he realized he was “becoming something” he didn’t “want to be.”

If you don't get it, that's 3 white trump supporters jumping a black protester and beating the crap out of him, and Carlson was watching it on a video.

[Gavrushka]

Jamaica is accelerating plans to hold a referendum on whether they're to remove Charles-3 as head of state and become a republic.

Gotta say, I'm not wildly impressed with the UK royal family.

Sky News Article.

Must admit I really lost any last vestige of respect for the entitled dude when he left a terse post-it note for his 'manservant' when he left his toothpaste on the wrong side of his toothbrush...