1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
    Dismiss Notice

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by usmccharles, May 22, 2017.

  1. You're better off not watching any news at all and reading it instead, just saying. #ShamelessPlug #ImAPrintJournalist #PlzSubscribeToYourLocalPapers
     
  2. I don't trust the journalists in Hippieville USA(San Francisco or Boulder. Whichever you prefer since I'm a resident in both ;)
     
    #102 Lost_In_The_Sauce, May 24, 2017
    Last edited: May 24, 2017
  3. I don't mean to be rude, but... that is a dumb sentiment. Trust them. Journalists, and investment in journalism, are vital to sustaining a functioning democracy. The founders wrote that, you know. The whole concept of "media bias" is true on the op-ed pages, but, duh. That's what the op-ed pages are for

    However, the actual reporters doing the leg work are some of the hardest working and fairest people you could meet. And frankly, we're too underpaid and overworked to play sides. We actually think it's adorable that people think we give that much of a crap about picking sides. No, we like to inflict as much pain as possible on all sides. Do you really think we give a crap about picking sides?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. T'was a joke my good man. I read the chronicle and the sac bee. Tend to trust most newspaper sources moreso than MSM
    [doublepost=1495679346,1495679234][/doublepost]But I'm the kind of guy who looks everywhere for my news sources, I don't discriminated(I mean, I watch Fox News lol) Sorry lol. Forgot that people can't detect sarcasm through the internet unless it's explicitly stated. That's my bad.
     
  5. Serious question: why do some of you think print/digital media is biased? When did you start thinking this? I have my theories, but I'm an elitist ass so I'll defer. I'm talking about the reporters, by the way -- not the columnists. Some people, more than you think, don't know the difference.
     
  6. To put it simply, they're people. Nobody can fully give up bias especially if they're convinced that they are the last stand for democracy, like it seems a few do
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Actually I don't have too much of a problem with print media's reporters. Columnist I tend to ignore(I don't usually read op-eds unless its a controversial topic). But reporters? They usually state the facts. They exist on the television medium as well for both networks(Brett Baer on Fox News reports the hard facts before he starts his show with the columnists. At that point I usually just turn it off).
     
  8. What a solid argument...
     
  9. Jesus man do you want to hear a different opinion or not?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. [​IMG]
     
  11. I disagree with the premise of your argument. "To put it simply, they're people" is a shallow argument at best. What line of work are you in? Well, whatever it is, I question your ability. Why? "To put it simply, you're a person."

    Seriously. All we do is write down the facts and analyze them. You think we make stuff up?
     
  12. Or this :D
    [​IMG]
    [doublepost=1495681497,1495681394][/doublepost]
    So why not post this instead of going the passive aggresive route?

    And that "analysis" can be quite questionable at best.
     
  13. Going to sound elitist, but our analysis is probably more complex than the average person's for the simple fact that this is what we do for 60 hours a week. It's no fault of the average person, but we are experts in the subjects we cover. I mean, I spent 10 hours in government meetings alone last week -- not even counting time reading docs, interviewing other sources, reading other papers, or actually doing the writing. Whether you agree with it... whatever. But typically, we have a good sense of what's going on. It's our job to know more. That's why we do this. To know more, and tell you more. Trust us. Let us do our damn job.

    Seriously. We make poverty wages. The hours suck. If I wanted to indoctrinate you, I'd leave to actually work in politics. I've had offers. Do you think we do this for power or influence? If that's what we wanted we could easily get paid more to do it. We do this because we believe in it. We do this because we believe that a well-informed populace is best suited to elect a serviceable government and hold it accountable.
     
  14. I don't know what I am supposed to see in that picture.

    On the one I posted the description is a sharp contrast with reality. It is at the very least, spin. At most a lie wrapped in bias.

    This is one example of why I have trust issues with the media.
     
  15. It was simply meant to be humerous. Just that Tim Kaine rally that had only 30 people
     
  16. 30 but rallying hard.
     
  17. I don't disagree with any of that. But surely, you must understand that most people feel that there are no trustworthy major sources of news due to things we see almost every day, from all of them, not just from Fox or CNN. I mentioned previously how I like to read about the same news item from various sources just because I get a kick out of how they all put different spins on it.

    I don't think you should take it personally that there is so much distrust on all sides of the fence. It is what we are being fed by the media.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. I try not take take it personally, but the thing just wears on you a little bit when we catch flack for what CNN and Fox and MSNBC do.

    The confusing thing to me is that in 1972 and 1973, the Washington Post's Watergate coverage was relentlessly critical of Nixon, with little positive. Yet, people trusted the media, and the reporting took down a president. Now, in what is a similar situation. reporting by the Washington Post and the New York Times on Russia dealings has been fantastic, and it's being dismissed as fake news. Why? What changed between 1972 and 2017 to make people outright dismiss effective, watchdog journalism? Again, I have my theory, but I want someone else to reconcile this.

    Part of my struggle is that I live in a world of facts and science, and I honestly can't even personally relate to people that don't value those things. To dismiss facts or science runs counter to logic. That's why many of us reporters are so pissy in these dark times. It's the Post-Truth Era. Don't like something? Well, it must be fake. Once told a man that scientists said medical cannabis has benefits. He said "I don't think so." I asked why. I never got an answer. He just disagrees. Once told a man that the ACA drastically increase insurance rates in rural areas (this is objectively true), and his response? "Well, I disagree with that." I can't comprehend how you disagree with a fact.
     
    #118 The Raven, May 25, 2017
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Jesus, that ACA one really gets to me. A buddy of mine; his payments went from $100/mo to $612/mo. He posted it all over Facebook, showing his monthly statements. People would have been outraged, but they were already seething from their own payments rising. But I certainly understand how you would feel if someone said to your face "No, ACA does not do that."

    On a personal level, I deal with nonsense like that all the time as well. I have what is considered senior level experience in three different programming languages: C, Python and PHP. The last one, PHP, gets a lot of unjust hate from certain elitists (despite the fact that over 80% of the internet is powered by PHP), and when I tell them that I use the language, they view me as some incompetent chud that doesn't know any better; essentially undermining my credibility.
    How do I handle that? I ask them what they think is so horrible about it. I correct them when applicable, acknowledge if they actually bring up a valid point; but not surprisingly, most of them simply do not know what they are talking about, or do not even know the language well enough to make an assessment in the first place. There is no reasoning with people who do not use reason. Therefore any discussion with them is fruitless and a waste of time if your goal is to teach them anything or correct them. That means that their opinions carry so little weight, that it is beneath you to get upset over it. It's like being mad at a four year old for being utterly clueless about a complex system. Perhaps trying looking at it from that point of view.

    As for why people call WaPo and NYT "sensationalists" and "fake news"....the obvious example is Trump's supposed collusion with Russia. What evidence is there of it? There is none, but they would have you believe that Trump is this close to impeachment, because they tend to present the issue as a forgone conclusion, when there is zero evidence to back it up with. Even Maxine Waters of all people, admits this to be true. http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/18/e...-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-video/
    But despite that, every day it seems, Trump's collusion and impending impeachment is a topic of discussion for them. But yet, they fought tooth and nail defending Hillary and her emails. Showing a clear bias is a death sentence to one's credibility. And again, it is not just the "liberal media" pulling this nonsense, it is nearly all of the major networks. This is the world we live in now.

    **edit**


    No sooner do I say that, and now today WaPo is somewhat back tracking with this article this morning:


    View attachment 10


    To summarize:

    "Warning signs existed before Nov. 8. It’s not even clear that more forceful warnings before the election would have made any difference, because it’s hard to see how knowledge of what Russia was purportedly up to would have diminished or altered the effect. But: Trump wasn’t supposed to win. That he did and that he did so narrowly magnified all of the factors that went into his victory, including Russia’s role. That’s the key reason that the meddling question is more important now than it was then."

    So giving credit where it is due; this article was about as objective as can be. No accusations were made, no innuendo suggested. If only they would do that consistently.
     
    #119 flynismo, May 25, 2017
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  20. Even Marine Le Pen (French presidential candidate) was accused of having ties to Russia. It's more of a craze then a reasonable theory.
     

Share This Page

  1. There are currently no users chatting.

You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.