Political Ocean's 11

[Guard Dog]

Apparently Trump is starting to lose even Rush Limbaugh's support: http://www.realclearlife.com/politics/rush-limbaugh-says-trump-making-nervous-acting-like-dictator/

 

Personally I think there is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy going on. The ones who had no beef when Barack Obama was threatening to exclude and shut down Fox News  are screaming about Trump threatening NBC. And vice versa. People need to realize it's dangerous, even evil when both happen. Even if NBC were running stories that were outright fabrications Trump needs to STFU. If he has been wronged and that resulted in harm there are laws that deal with that. If a news network literally makes up stories they can be discredited. Does anyone take Infowars or Rolling Stone seriously? Of course not. But their protection from reprisals by the government is not contingent on them telling the truth. Aside from inciting violence or other criminal activity or committing fraud the speech protections of the "media" (broad use of the term) are pretty close to absolute.

 

We really need to get back to electing Presidents, not would-be dictators.  

[Chilloutman]

something local, food for thought

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-13/xenophobia-victim-poised-to-boost-czech-far-right-in-parliament

[redneckdevil]

Apparently Trump is starting to lose even Rush Limbaugh's support: http://www.realclearlife.com/politics/rush-limbaugh-says-trump-making-nervous-acting-like-dictator/

 

Personally I think there is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy going on. The ones who had no beef when Barack Obama was threatening to exclude and shut down Fox News are screaming about Trump threatening NBC. And vice versa. People need to realize it's dangerous, even evil when both happen. Even if NBC were running stories that were outright fabrications Trump needs to STFU. If he has been wronged and that resulted in harm there are laws that deal with that. If a news network literally makes up stories they can be discredited. Does anyone take Infowars or Rolling Stone seriously? Of course not. But their protection from reprisals by the government is not contingent on them telling the truth. Aside from inciting violence or other criminal activity or committing fraud the speech protections of the "media" (broad use of the term) are pretty close to absolute.

 

We really need to get back to electing Presidents, not would-be dictators.

The problem is that people take what the news says as absolute "truth" and what they say and show as "proof".

 

Everyone quits that process and I will agree with you. Until then, sadly I'm on the side with Trump then, because if something is gonna be used as "proof" and "truth" then it needs to be mutha****ing true then and we need to push that.

Also simply because out news isn't an exercise of free speech anymore, that died when all the news organizations got bought by a few people and instead are just propaganda machines now.

We are outraged and up in arms about countries like Russia that control their media, why aren't we as well up in arms since our media is controlled as well? Didn't paying attention to the news and how they deceived and ****ed us during the last election?

[Malcador]

 

He has urged locals to stop buying kebab and to harass Muslims by walking dogs and pigs near the two mosques in the country of 10.6 million.

 

Not one of his better ideas.

[Malcador]

The problem is that people take what the news says as absolute "truth" and what they say and show as "proof".

 

Everyone quits that process and I will agree with you. Until then, sadly I'm on the side with Trump then, because if something is gonna be used as "proof" and "truth" then it needs to be mutha****ing true then and we need to push that.

You're ok with Trump wanting to shut down a media organization because he thinks they are lying about him ? So how would the government "push that", exactly, in your mind ?

Edited October 13, 2017 by Malcador

[redneckdevil]

 

The problem is that people take what the news says as absolute "truth" and what they say and show as "proof".

 

Everyone quits that process and I will agree with you. Until then, sadly I'm on the side with Trump then, because if something is gonna be used as "proof" and "truth" then it needs to be mutha****ing true then and we need to push that.

You're ok with Trump wanting to shut down a media organization because he thinks they are lying about him ? So how would the government "push that", exactly, in your mind ?

I'm opposed to treating news media as "credible" sources. If it takes a crybaby to get the ball rolling, I'm okay with that.

Because our news media is nothing but a propaganda machine, it's NOT about free speech because if it was then why do they cut people off that they don't like what's being said as just one example? Answer is it doesn't for their (keyword) "narrative....

Edited October 13, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Malcador]

Ok. And how is that going to be done practically? Libel laws exist already so why do you want some lazy shortcut and one worrying sword to hand to the state.

[injurai]

The media is propaganda of a different kind, news organizations are more collectives of people buying into their preferred bias. If you're diligent enough to wade through all the details and come to a more discerning picture of the truth, then for yourself use that truth to out live others then go far it. I don't think we need to expect the news to be our friends, and I don't think it needs to be shut down. The more people leave those sources, the more they double down on their base. The fact that we have so many choices to get our news, while a double edged sword, is also a liberating thing.

 

Propaganda doesn't work the same as it used to, it's more about competing narratives and overwhelming supply of spreading grievances upon those who have no way to contribute. In many ways they are machines that sell superiority complexes.

[Ben No.3]

The motives changed. We don’t have state propaganda trying to force a world view onto us so that we might obey. Instead, we have news outlets building on whatever ideology we follow without ever expanding or questioning it so that we might pay. What is more dangerous is difficult to say; but both kills democracy.

 

Then again, times change. In the realm of the internet, a user is not the customer, he is the recource; more specifically the data about him. The customers are right now mainly advertisement companies, but of course also entities such as political parties.

But the nature of the information presented thereby also changes. Whereas the information previously was the product to he sold, and therefore quality information and research was a profitable option for newspapers, the product is now data about the readers. In turn, the quality (and truthfullness) of the information presented itself becomes close to irrelevant from an economic point of view. Data is collected through the observation of our behaviour; therefore we need to be triggered to behave somehow. The reaction to the information is now the object of economic interest. This ultimate commodification of our lives has the byproduct, that it becomes financially profitable for our suppliers of information to immerse us into essentially made up worlds; incomplete pictures of reality presented from a narrow point of view. But! It catches our attention.

 

Then again, we always knew that facts weren’t “real”. “Fact” -> lat. “factum” (eng. “made”)

[redneckdevil]

Ok. And how is that going to be done practically? Libel laws exist already so why do you want some lazy shortcut and one worrying sword to hand to the state.

truthfully, i do not want or wish to give the gov't that power to shut down news organizations or any organizations they do not agree with, but i will admit that is alot easier to do than to teach mankind not to believe everything they see or hear or even feel without searching the answers out on their own.  Also make it legal to slap whoever says "but i heard on it the news so it must be true.." ( u can even put "i read it in the bible/koran/etc)

 

What i am okay with the gov't doing to change/fix our media.

1. make it official that news of any type (including govt) is not a credible source of truth.

2. change or actually enforce the libel laws/restrictions (funny our govt actually DOES control our news lmao) and whoever is in charge of it force the news agency at the very beginning page list ALL enfractures and "mistakes" that were sold as news.

3. BAN any political party or big businesses as well from contributing financially to the news agency (other than commercials).  Connect dots of business owned and political contributions and memberships.  Otherwise top of screen and page of outlining story with "paid for by such and such".

 

i think those 3 things would change how our "news" would work and operate.  i can dream though.

Edited October 13, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Ben No.3]

 

Ok. And how is that going to be done practically? Libel laws exist already so why do you want some lazy shortcut and one worrying sword to hand to the state.

truthfully, i do not want or wish to give the gov't that power to shut down news organizations or any organizations they do not agree with, but i will admit that is alot easier to do than to teach mankind not to believe everything they see or hear or even feel without searching the answers out on their own. Also make it legal to slap whoever says "but i heard on it the news so it must be true.." ( u can even put "i read it in the bible/koran/etc)

 

What i am okay with the gov't doing to change/fix our media.

1. make it official that news of any type (including govt) is not a credible source of truth.

2. change or actually enforce the libel laws/restrictions (funny our govt actually DOES control our news lmao) and whoever is in charge of it force the news agency at the very beginning page list ALL enfractures and "mistakes" that were sold as news.

3. BAN any political party or big businesses as well from contributing financially to the news agency (other than commercials). Connect dots of business owned and political contributions and memberships. Otherwise top of screen and page of outlining story with "paid for by such and such".

 

i think those 3 things would change how our "news" would work and operate. i can dream though.

wouldn’t that exception make point three essentially irrelevant?

[Bartimaeus]

The ones who had no beef when Barack Obama was threatening to exclude and shut down Fox News

 

now I can remember obama very openly criticizing fox news, but I can't even remember him threatening to try to shut it down or anything along those lines

[Ben No.3]

 

The ones who had no beef when Barack Obama was threatening to exclude and shut down Fox News

now I can remember obama very openly criticizing fox news, but I can't even remember him threatening to try to shut it down or anything along those lines

Here’s a news outlet called “American Patriot”, a name that suggests objective, reasoned and fair discussion like no other, saying that Obama could maybe, in theory, perhaps shut down Fox.

 

http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/this-obama-scheme-could-shut-down-fox-news/

[HoonDing]

If Trump can't take the heat, maybe he should get out of the kitchen.

[injurai]

If Trump can't take the heat, maybe he should get out of the kitchen.

 

What do you think all those trips to Mar-a-lago are about?

[HoonDing]

Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

[smjjames]

 

 

The ones who had no beef when Barack Obama was threatening to exclude and shut down Fox News

now I can remember obama very openly criticizing fox news, but I can't even remember him threatening to try to shut it down or anything along those lines

Here’s a news outlet called “American Patriot”, a name that suggests objective, reasoned and fair discussion like no other, saying that Obama could maybe, in theory, perhaps shut down Fox.

 

http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/this-obama-scheme-could-shut-down-fox-news/

 

 

I find that somewhat ironic because Trump is threatening to shut down media critical of him.

[Hurlshort]

Well guys. If the fake news media are willing to run a story about Trump wanting to increase nuclear arsenal 10 times based on "three anonymous officials", but they don't run a well documented story about Weinstein with credible on the record sources, documents an basically his confession on tape, because they claim the story is unpublishable then I don't understand how anyone can defend this kind of behavior.

 

NBC should rightly be raked over the coals, but the New York Times and NPR have been all over it, and they are very liberal. Also I'm not sure where you get the impression anyone is defending the media. There is a ton of hypocrisy out there with both conservative and liberal sides of the media. For example, Fox news runs a story about the NY Times changing their social media policies. Fox uses it as a chance to go after their reporters that have tweeted disparaging remarks about Trump. But I'm pretty sure you can find a dozen Fox News reporters that have done the exact same thing with Obama. It's all a farce.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/13/ny-times-changes-social-media-guidelines-so-reporters-dont-appear-biased.html

[Malcador]

Had to laugh at Bannon saying Corker is out of line to criticize the Commander in Chief when troops are in harm's way. Who knew he advocated such servility.

[Ben No.3]

Well guys. If the fake news media are willing to run a story about Trump wanting to increase nuclear arsenal 10 times based on "three anonymous officials", but they don't run a well documented story about Weinstein with credible on the record sources, documents an basically his confession on tape, because they claim the story is unpublishable then I don't understand how anyone can defend this kind of behavior.

Defending the rights of the media does not equate to defending the media. I will defend the media against unjust actions by the state, more precisely Trump, in the same way I will defend a convicted murderer against a death sentence. Because much like the death sentence, undermining the media is little but political savagery; and I will not be quiet while barbarians sit in the White House.

[Blodhemn]

The media is a laughing stock, but I always felt the Fox/NBCs were less harmful since they both just speak to their audiences anyway in blatant form, while the others pretend to be some beacon of honor despite being just as bias as any other source. Fox/NBC are like sports entertainment, the rest are more businesslike and professional with their bias.

[Zoraptor]

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to take Austria's new leader seriously, his resemblance to Bale's Patrick Bateman is such that I'm going to be expecting him to start waxing lyrical about the philosophical merits of Huey Lewis and the News or Phil Collins in between wanting to expel all muslims.

 

 

Well guys. If the fake news media are willing to run a story about Trump wanting to increase nuclear arsenal 10 times based on "three anonymous officials", but they don't run a well documented story about Weinstein with credible on the record sources, documents an basically his confession on tape, because they claim the story is unpublishable then I don't understand how anyone can defend this kind of behavior.

 

NBC should rightly be raked over the coals, but the New York Times and NPR have been all over it, and they are very liberal.

 

 

NYT allegedly spiked at least one Weinstein story. Given what happened with Jimmy Saville in the UK I'd be surprised if pretty much every major news organisation hadn't spiked at least one exposé.

[Chilloutman]

yeah, cry more! xD

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/austria-election-exit-poll-result-sebastian-kurz-ovp-latest-projection-freedom-far-right-a8001811.html

[Zoraptor]

EU lurches from one crisis to another. Kind of a shame the Austrian election wasn't before the German one, Merkel may have done even worse if two of their neighbours were refusing to bail her out of her refugee problem instead of just one.

Disappointing that Austria is so irrelevant really, apart from Bateman references (and he really ought to have been chasing muslims with a chainsaw while in his budgie smugglers in my previous post) we could also have some Apocalypse Now references too.

[Malcador]

Looks more like Joel Osteen.