By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
An Australian professor of Data Analytics from Griffith University who predicted Trump’s first win, the Australian Federal Election(when all the polls said the opposite) and Brexit has called it - Trump will be re-elected for another 4 years. You heard it here first.
Not trying to edit anyone's posts but can we please not go down the partisan route. We know where it ends. This has been such an informative thread and there are some really knowledgeable people on here. I'd like to see it continue and not be a proxy war between the right and left. Please.
Not trying to edit anyone's posts but can we please not go down the partisan route. We know where it ends. This has been such an informative thread and there are some really knowledgeable people on here. I'd like to see it continue and not be a proxy war between the right and left. Please.
Yeah, pack it in. Has been a good thread, I go to bed and everyone's started acting like nobs
Not saying if genuine, but many reports of mail in vote irregularities coming in. MSM won't report. Apparently in some cases republican observers prevented from viewing vote counting by democrats. If true, so much for democracy...
Not saying if genuine, but many reports of mail in vote irregularities coming in. MSM won't report. Apparently in some cases republican observers prevented from viewing vote counting by democrats. If true, so much for democracy...
Not saying if genuine, but many reports of mail in vote irregularities coming in. MSM won't report. Apparently in some cases republican observers prevented from viewing vote counting by democrats. If true, so much for democracy...
Even Fox News have said the stories about republicans being denied access to the count isn’t true.
Not saying if genuine, but many reports of mail in vote irregularities coming in. MSM won't report. Apparently in some cases republican observers prevented from viewing vote counting by democrats. If true, so much for democracy...
You told me to fck off to Russia once for expressing an opinion.
[Post edited 7 Nov 2020 1:09]
Doubtful Baz. I don't swear. However your politics are an anathema to me. I probably suggested Russia was a better setting for your political posturing.
Not saying if genuine, but many reports of mail in vote irregularities coming in. MSM won't report. Apparently in some cases republican observers prevented from viewing vote counting by democrats. If true, so much for democracy...
But good news if you’ve got shares in tin foil manufacturers.
Doubtful Baz. I don't swear. However your politics are an anathema to me. I probably suggested Russia was a better setting for your political posturing.
Firstly, “MSM” includes multiple different media companies across multiple channels who have (and have had throughout their existing) differing editorial stances. Lumping then together is stupid when they have different takes on things. The Mirror and The Sun hardly colluded on anything! Ditto Fox and CBS.
Secondly, “MSM” compromises hundreds of thousands of professional journalists, who have trained in their discipline and the ethos behind it. Yes, there will be a few rotten eggs, just like EVERY profession, but the idea that they are ALL in on something is stupid. How could they organise it? There would be evidence everywhere. And besides, most individual journalists in the “MSM” disagree with each other on ideology and perspective, almost all the time!
Thirdly, every media outlet is subjective. I subscribe to post modernism and in it’s most raw form, I don’t see how any media outlet or journalist can claim to be truly “objective”. We are framed, and how we see things is framed, by our experiences, our DNA and our upbringing. No two people are 100% alike so no two people will see all political issues in the same way. Once you accept that EVERY media outlet, MSM or fringe, professional or amateur, left or right, is subjective (albeit some try harder than others to maintain an attempt at objectivity), it’s impossible to credibly criticise MSM but not, say, Donald Trump or Bannon, or The Morning Star. That’s just picking sides.
Fourthly, even after all of that, you think, “I still don’t trust MSM”, tell me this, who do you trust to report information? And why do you trust them? Are they professional journalists? Do they have hard unequivocal evidence? Are they truly objective? If so, how? Why is their take more believable than anyone in the MSM? Who are their sources? What agenda might they have?
Basically “amateur” journalism, and the internet and social media have exacerbated the rise of this, has no ethics or professional codes to follow. Sources are often never presented, and rarely fact checked. Evidence is rarely presented nor fact checked either. Now, some media outlets and journalists in MSM have forged on down this path too - more fool them as they pour petrol on the fire under their feet to keep warm in the short term - and I’ll happily listen to criticism of individuals and corporations in MSM, just as I will of Steve Bannon et al in the fringe, amateur media. But to differentiate the two and withhold trust from the professionals and wilfully trust the amateurs, makes literally no sense. It is fundamentally brain dead. All you are doing is reflecting your pre-conceived beliefs and then trying to justify them. That has nothing to do with “MSM”. Apart from revealing that not enough of the hundreds of MSM outlets of hundreds of thousands of MSM professional journalists share your opinion on things...which, if we’re honest, indicates it’s probably not a robust opinion with much evidence to back it up, given MSM is by and large a capitalist, competitive sector where outlets compete for your custom. And they compete by trying to appeal to people’s opinions. If yours isn’t being appealed to in such a globally broad industry, it’s probably not a valid opinion.
People need to grow a pair and accept their opinion on something might not be correct. It might be them that is wrong not a whole, fragmented, competitive, disparate global industry.
Firstly, “MSM” includes multiple different media companies across multiple channels who have (and have had throughout their existing) differing editorial stances. Lumping then together is stupid when they have different takes on things. The Mirror and The Sun hardly colluded on anything! Ditto Fox and CBS.
Secondly, “MSM” compromises hundreds of thousands of professional journalists, who have trained in their discipline and the ethos behind it. Yes, there will be a few rotten eggs, just like EVERY profession, but the idea that they are ALL in on something is stupid. How could they organise it? There would be evidence everywhere. And besides, most individual journalists in the “MSM” disagree with each other on ideology and perspective, almost all the time!
Thirdly, every media outlet is subjective. I subscribe to post modernism and in it’s most raw form, I don’t see how any media outlet or journalist can claim to be truly “objective”. We are framed, and how we see things is framed, by our experiences, our DNA and our upbringing. No two people are 100% alike so no two people will see all political issues in the same way. Once you accept that EVERY media outlet, MSM or fringe, professional or amateur, left or right, is subjective (albeit some try harder than others to maintain an attempt at objectivity), it’s impossible to credibly criticise MSM but not, say, Donald Trump or Bannon, or The Morning Star. That’s just picking sides.
Fourthly, even after all of that, you think, “I still don’t trust MSM”, tell me this, who do you trust to report information? And why do you trust them? Are they professional journalists? Do they have hard unequivocal evidence? Are they truly objective? If so, how? Why is their take more believable than anyone in the MSM? Who are their sources? What agenda might they have?
Basically “amateur” journalism, and the internet and social media have exacerbated the rise of this, has no ethics or professional codes to follow. Sources are often never presented, and rarely fact checked. Evidence is rarely presented nor fact checked either. Now, some media outlets and journalists in MSM have forged on down this path too - more fool them as they pour petrol on the fire under their feet to keep warm in the short term - and I’ll happily listen to criticism of individuals and corporations in MSM, just as I will of Steve Bannon et al in the fringe, amateur media. But to differentiate the two and withhold trust from the professionals and wilfully trust the amateurs, makes literally no sense. It is fundamentally brain dead. All you are doing is reflecting your pre-conceived beliefs and then trying to justify them. That has nothing to do with “MSM”. Apart from revealing that not enough of the hundreds of MSM outlets of hundreds of thousands of MSM professional journalists share your opinion on things...which, if we’re honest, indicates it’s probably not a robust opinion with much evidence to back it up, given MSM is by and large a capitalist, competitive sector where outlets compete for your custom. And they compete by trying to appeal to people’s opinions. If yours isn’t being appealed to in such a globally broad industry, it’s probably not a valid opinion.
People need to grow a pair and accept their opinion on something might not be correct. It might be them that is wrong not a whole, fragmented, competitive, disparate global industry.
Interesting post Hunter.
This video is a bit dated and a bit lengthy, but Chomsky and Marr discuss the 'MSM' which sums up the whole issue for me:
Not saying if genuine, but many reports of mail in vote irregularities coming in. MSM won't report. Apparently in some cases republican observers prevented from viewing vote counting by democrats. If true, so much for democracy...
The thing is, democracy is working fine.
Postal voting has been in place for decades with little to next no problems. I believe Trump has in the past endorsed postal voting.
Everyone knows that the result of ballot box voting comes in first followed by the postal votes.
Suddenly it’s a massive problem simply because Trump is losing and he and his machine start pumping out all sorts of bollox into the sphere that people lap up without a blink of an eye.
Firstly, “MSM” includes multiple different media companies across multiple channels who have (and have had throughout their existing) differing editorial stances. Lumping then together is stupid when they have different takes on things. The Mirror and The Sun hardly colluded on anything! Ditto Fox and CBS.
Secondly, “MSM” compromises hundreds of thousands of professional journalists, who have trained in their discipline and the ethos behind it. Yes, there will be a few rotten eggs, just like EVERY profession, but the idea that they are ALL in on something is stupid. How could they organise it? There would be evidence everywhere. And besides, most individual journalists in the “MSM” disagree with each other on ideology and perspective, almost all the time!
Thirdly, every media outlet is subjective. I subscribe to post modernism and in it’s most raw form, I don’t see how any media outlet or journalist can claim to be truly “objective”. We are framed, and how we see things is framed, by our experiences, our DNA and our upbringing. No two people are 100% alike so no two people will see all political issues in the same way. Once you accept that EVERY media outlet, MSM or fringe, professional or amateur, left or right, is subjective (albeit some try harder than others to maintain an attempt at objectivity), it’s impossible to credibly criticise MSM but not, say, Donald Trump or Bannon, or The Morning Star. That’s just picking sides.
Fourthly, even after all of that, you think, “I still don’t trust MSM”, tell me this, who do you trust to report information? And why do you trust them? Are they professional journalists? Do they have hard unequivocal evidence? Are they truly objective? If so, how? Why is their take more believable than anyone in the MSM? Who are their sources? What agenda might they have?
Basically “amateur” journalism, and the internet and social media have exacerbated the rise of this, has no ethics or professional codes to follow. Sources are often never presented, and rarely fact checked. Evidence is rarely presented nor fact checked either. Now, some media outlets and journalists in MSM have forged on down this path too - more fool them as they pour petrol on the fire under their feet to keep warm in the short term - and I’ll happily listen to criticism of individuals and corporations in MSM, just as I will of Steve Bannon et al in the fringe, amateur media. But to differentiate the two and withhold trust from the professionals and wilfully trust the amateurs, makes literally no sense. It is fundamentally brain dead. All you are doing is reflecting your pre-conceived beliefs and then trying to justify them. That has nothing to do with “MSM”. Apart from revealing that not enough of the hundreds of MSM outlets of hundreds of thousands of MSM professional journalists share your opinion on things...which, if we’re honest, indicates it’s probably not a robust opinion with much evidence to back it up, given MSM is by and large a capitalist, competitive sector where outlets compete for your custom. And they compete by trying to appeal to people’s opinions. If yours isn’t being appealed to in such a globally broad industry, it’s probably not a valid opinion.
People need to grow a pair and accept their opinion on something might not be correct. It might be them that is wrong not a whole, fragmented, competitive, disparate global industry.
Yes, but that's more than 120 characters. I can fit "we're not winning because the msm is against us!" in less than 50
What was that you were saying about not being able to pay for all the promises?
The idea that massive tax cuts for the wealthy stimulates innovation growth or tax increases on them cause rich people to suddenly flee the country is all a bit lower sixth form economics. Doesn’t seem to happen in reality.
The MSM or professional media outlets are the only legitimate sources that stand between the people and a government. If a government crosses a line, how are we going to know? I know this is basic stuff but an entire generation gets its news from social media and this simple fact has gotten lost over the years and something Trump knows all too well. If you are going to cut somebody off at the knees, don't tell them in advance but Trump has never been good at keeping his mouth shut so it's no surprise he told Lesley Stahl back in 2016 why he calls the media Fake News.
Stahl said on Monday night that in a candid, off-camera meeting earlier that year, she pressed him to explain his barrage of insults aimed at journalists, and he gave her a clear explanation:
"I said, 'You know, that is getting tired. Why are you doing this? You're doing it over and over. It's boring and it's time to end that,'" Stahl said on stage alongside "PBS Newshour anchor Judy Woodruff.Â
"He said, 'You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.' He said that," Stahl told the audience, adding, "So, put that in your head for a minute."
So now we have a generation that mistrusts the MSN and believes the disinformation and if that doesn't turn around, Trump won't be the last wannabe dictator brainwashing his followers into power.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
