Trump

clakclak · Post by **clakclak** » Mon, 17. Sep 18, 22:08

Mightysword wrote:[...]

Setting that aside though, I don't know what Breibart is or why you hate it. [...]

I am happy to see that you managed to avoid it so far, altough I am fairly suprised as one of its co-founders, Steve Bannon, held a pretty important position in the Trump White House for some time. Breitbart is basically a propaganda website for Bannon and like minded people. I explicitly say propaganda because they resort to pretty lazy lies. My favourite one was (and I think I mentioned this before), when they took a picture of world cup winning footballer Lukas Podolski and implied hey was a refugee arriving illegally in Europe via jetski.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Mon, 17. Sep 18, 22:24

It's really quite an interesting world we live in. People get to make stuff up. The word 'research', is often applied to the process of gathering information to support what we already believe.

Thus, if our beliefs are mainstream, we will 'research' main stream publications. If our beliefs are extreme left or right, we will likewise reference those who agree with us.

Media has become the choir that preaches to the already converted. The more media there is available, the more intransigent the masses become in their particular flavor of conditioning.

Post by **Santi** » Mon, 17. Sep 18, 23:50

While people tend to read what support their ideals, it is also worth noting the changes that digital news have bring to society.

"news that you may be interested in" "content that you may like" "information based in your preferences" Are the staple of today news, sure, they are at the end of the articles (just above the clickbaits) but it does reinforce the point that the press is trying to manipulate the way you think, or trying to sell you something, so becoming that less trustworthy.

I do not have any problem with bias as I read several papers and news agencies, but I do have a big problem when in any piece of news I do not have the whole of the facts as to make up my mind as to what, I personally think about the matter.

And also when the press goes all out trying to cause mass hysteria or outrage for stupid things.

Mightysword · Post by **Mightysword** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 02:28

clakclak wrote: I am happy to see that you managed to avoid it so far, altough I am fairly suprised as one of its co-founders, Steve Bannon ...

It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad?

Santi wrote: "news that you may be interested in" "content that you may like" "information based in your preferences" Are the staple of today news, sure, they are at the end of the articles (just above the clickbaits) but it does reinforce the point that the press is trying to manipulate the way you think, or trying to sell you something, so becoming that less trustworthy.

The other, and probably bigger problem is how do we define 'news'. I'm very harsh on the current state of mainstream media, but I'm not foolish enough to think they're alone taking the blame. Anyone here still read print newspaper? The thing with them is at the very least, it's plenty clear on a newspaper where is journalism and where is the columnist, basically you can see the line between reporting and opinionated. Now, take a look at CNN front page and sometime I feel HALF of it is opinionated pieces. Sure, they give it different name: opinion, analysis, op-edin ...etc... but ... that's not reporting. The problem from the reader side though, is often when people link or quote something from a news site, they automatically think them as news.

We live in a days and age where we impulsively treats anything on the internet as 'news' as long as we find it agreeable with our point of view while in reality it's just another opinion on the internet. I mean, looking at the history of this thread, links can be found plenty, but do even half of them can be counted as news?

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 06:28

Mightysword wrote:Sure, they give it different name: opinion, analysis, op-edin ...etc... but ... that's not reporting. The problem from the reader side though, is often when people link or quote something from a news site, they automatically think them as news.

Is it hard though?

I see what CNN writes and generally have no issues identifying what's news and what's opinions. If there are uncertainties, there are plenty of other sources to check.

Same with FOX, I can pretty clearly see when it's opinions.

The Breitbart? Everyone knows it's alt right pamphlet. (who knows of them)

Mightysword wrote: We live in a days and age where we impulsively treats anything on the internet as 'news' as long as we find it agreeable with our point of view while in reality it's just another opinion on the internet.

That's not the right way to read news, and neither it was ever the right way to read when it was all printed.

Yellow press had always existed and still does.

Mightysword wrote: mean, looking at the history of this thread, links can be found plenty, but do even half of them can be counted as news?

That depends on a link

Mightysword · Post by **Mightysword** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 06:49

@Fiskal, you missed most of the points:

- It's not about how hard to identify them, it's about the ratio. Maybe it's just me, but when I visit a newsite, I would like most of the content are actual news. Because if I want opinion, I would go to a forum, or reading a blog.

- It's not about you or me identifying something as news or not. It's about these days people treating most thing as news. People can link an opinionated piece as a 'citation' for their 'news' when it's merely a bias opinion of someone who just happens to write something on CNN/Fox. It's not conjecture, it's fact, remember we live in an age when people are accepting social platform like facebook/twitter or even youtube as news source.

clakclak · Post by **clakclak** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 11:19

Mightysword wrote:
clakclak wrote: I am happy to see that you managed to avoid it so far, altough I am fairly suprised as one of its co-founders, Steve Bannon ...
It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad?
[...]

It would not be less bad, but I would certainly approach an article I found on Xinhua a lot differently than one I found on Reuters.

Let me give you an example. These are articles from Xinhua (chinese state media), The Diplomat (an international newspaper with its main seat in Japan) and Deutsche Welle (German state media).

All three of them have a bias but all of them show it in a different way.

If you were only reading the Xinhua article you would come to the conclusion that the meeting went brilliantly, Merkel and Xi were in harmony and that it was about Chinese/German ties only. The article is not badly written. The contend also seems plausible and if you only had that article to go with you may think that this was everything that happend at the meeting.

Now if we got to The Diplomat we suddenly hear about Merkel meeting with human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, wonder why we didn't hear anything about that in Chinese state sponsored media? On a contend level however the Diplomat article shows its bias way more openly than the Xinhua article, by making a dig at Trump not talking about human rights in when he was in China, even though that is utterly irrelevant to the Merkel doing so. In general the article mainly focuses on German-Chinese cooperation as a counter balance to Trumps USA.

If we go to the DW article the first thing you notice is that it is German, so only accessible for people who speak the language or via bad translation via google translate. Now here we also suddenly read about Merkel demanding that access to the Chinese market for Germans be the same as to the German market for Chinese. Donald Trump however isn't mentioned once.

So I do think that it is important to keep in mind who publishes something. You can not always simply judge an article on the content level. Read only the Xinhau article, beliefe it because it seems plausible and never bother to check any other sources and you will get a very different picture than when reading the other two.

Knowing who is responsiable for what is also important when it comes to evaluating if you want to beliefe a certain source. I for example am very careful when it comes to believing Xinhua as the are an instrument of the chinese government. The same is true for Deutsche Welle, Russia Today and similar programs.

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 13:13

Great post clakclak.

Mightysword · Post by **Mightysword** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 16:21

clakclak wrote: So I do think that it is important to keep in mind who publishes something. You can not always simply judge an article on the content level. Read only the Xinhau article, beliefe it because it seems plausible and never bother to check any other sources and you will get a very different picture than when reading the other two.

For me I have that part covered by being an extreme skeptic when it comes to the media. Like I said I'm very harsh toward the mainstream media, I'm already not taking anything from them for granted, regardless of the station. Something of such low quality like the article in discussion just earn extra scrutiny, or dismissed altogether.

felter · Post by **felter** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 18:45

Take three people, show them an event together, talk to them separately and ask them what they witnessed and all three of them will give you a different view on what happened. This is just the same as news, whether it be in print, online or in a video, they will all report on the same thing but each report will be different.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 19:25

Knew if I decided to set back and watch then the forum would devolve into dithering and any subject except Donold J. Trump.

I'd guess it's too controversial and ends up with the ditherers slamming anyone with a firm opionion.

Especially if you don't happen to be living under his regime.

Maybe start a thread where you could dither away on topics like media bias, trade policy, etc and STOP TROLLING PEOPLE with firm opinions ON THE TOPIC!

(Just my firm opinion don't you know?

)

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 20:29

Sorry Hank, given the following as context:-

* Trump's attacks on the media
* the involvement (or utilisation?) of "new media" and social media in the 2016 election
* the partisan nature of US politics (and seeming partisan nature of US media)
* the general concern over "fake news"
* the criticism (some warranted) in this thread of how some of us (me included) use links to news reports, reportage and opinion pieces to back up our arguments
* and how people consume news

I think the discussion is on topic and very relevant

.

felter · Post by **felter** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 20:46

Trump's been kind of keeping quiet at least quiet for Trump, what with no new allegation against him or him making a pure ass out of himself, He even seems to be keeping a low profile when it comes to Kavanaugh. Basically he is currently not being Trump.

Hank001 · Post by **Hank001** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 20:55

RegisterMe:

Sorry Hank, given the following as context:-

* Trump's attacks on the media
* the involvement (or utilisation?) of "new media" and social media in the 2016 election
* the partisan nature of US politics (and seeming partisan nature of US media)
* the general concern over "fake news"
* the criticism (some warranted) in this thread of how some of us (me included) use links to news reports, reportage and opinion pieces to back up our arguments
* and how people consume news

* News media: In the the position that accepting the spin of one one party's position puts it in immediate opposition to the "alternate facts" of the other party. Neutral poitions therefore put it into opposition to both parties. So stop crying about it. Two positions will prevail, either the right or the left.

* 2016 elections: As I said, Putin was the big winner. He got just who he wanted as President of the United States and the question of how he did it has been settled. Now the question is: Is the Trump appointed heads of the National agencies REALLY going to stop Russia, China, Outter Sobovia from doing it again if they feel it's in their interests?

* Partisanship: It's us ot them. Deal with it.

* Fake News: Google "Orwellian" It's now here to such a degree it's just another tool in the box.

* Reportage choices: Well at least I don't try to foist Breitbart off as journalism...

* Consuming News. (Sorry, I've never liked to. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth)

There. That's my take on it.

I'm more concerned with the crime boss and fruitcake setting in the White House.

As for Trump being quiet, how's this? Guess the FBI should stay out of anything except investigating Democrats:

https://youtu.be/7hszL-TYjZA

Post by **Santi** » Tue, 18. Sep 18, 23:04

clakclak wrote:
Mightysword wrote:It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad?
[...]
It would not be less bad, but I would certainly approach an article I found on Xinhua a lot differently than one I found on Reuters.

It is not about bias, bias is expected, problem is content as Mightysword wrote, all the facts should be there, then the writer can give them the bias they prefer. Hiding facts is not acceptable in journalism no is bad practices.

Take the I am part of the Resistance Op-Ed (Opinion - Editorial) by The New York Times.

The author is given anonymity like it was a source of a current investigation by the paper, but it is writing an opinion article and the paper is not going to act on that information.

This has caused a lot of debate within the Journalists of The New York Times and other press professionals, it is a big scoop, it is great news discovering a "Resistance" within the government of the USA and something they strongly feel the public should know about it, if it is true.

But they cannot investigate it, on the one hand the New York Times is protecting the source from their own journalists, on the other, even if they go on their own and find something, their own paper, The New York Times will... well censor them to protect the source.

To top it up, that person, a high official presumably, is now a puppet in the hands of The New York Times, a liability for other presumed "conspirators" and leverage for whoever finds his name.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Trump