USA Politics

So .. no comments on the State of the Union speech ... I thought it was good and had some good (at least general) proposals.
 
Ignore? You do realise Trump's banned several media organisations from briefings, Travis?

Either way, I'll leave you to keep us informed by sifting through the shit for us.
 
Despite his insane ravings about the Next News Network (that guy is NOT a real journalist), Travis's point should not be lost. I'm genuinely in the market for a truly neutral, unbiased news source. The New York Times, which I have typically skimmed each morning, is not. It far too often resorts to shrill reporting and is not shy about its Democratic/liberal leanings. It's gotten to the point where it is hard to differentiate between the neutral articles (there appear to be some) and the skewed ones. It's too bad, frankly (or, as The Donald would say, "Sad"), as the NYT used to be the newspaper "of record" for U.S. readers. I may need to go back to The Wall Street Journal, which is more of a financial paper and doesn't go in-depth when it comes to regular news.
 
I find it annoying too. Don't like the way Trump is going after the media, but they are making it easy to be attacked. Unfortunately he is being so ridiculous about it that the media will only push back harder. But they really should rethink their reporting methods.

My go to source is Politico, then WaPo. Occasionally I'll do NPR, The Guardian, and BBC.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
I may need to go back to The Wall Street Journal, which is more of a financial paper and doesn't go in-depth when it comes to regular news.
Click to expand...

They were recently involved in a controversy concerning YouTube's biggest star, PewDiePie. Took his satirical videos out of context and accused him of being a Nazi. Dude lost the deal he had with Disney. Then a public smear campaign began, J.K. Rowling called him a fascist.

It's widely speculated that they went after him because he'd been highly critical of mainstream media in his recent videos and was arguing that mainstream media could not stand alternative media sources. (Like YouTube)
 
Cornfed Hick said:
It's gotten to the point where it is hard to differentiate between the neutral articles (there appear to be some) and the skewed ones.
Click to expand...
Any fake news examples?

I am not asking for articles you do not like. Please don't. I am asking for stuff you doubt if it is true. We all know that Trump doesn't know the difference (or tries to make us believe so), right?
 
Forostar said:
Any fake news examples?

I am not asking for articles you do not like. Please don't. I am asking for stuff you doubt if it is true. We all know that Trump doesn't know the difference (or tries to make us believe so), right?
Click to expand...
Now @Cornfed Hick specificially stated that he saw many articles as skewed, not that it was fake.

I think it is important for all of us to separate clearly between the following:
  1. Plain fake news - i.e. stories that are simply not real news.
  2. News stories where snippets of real news are edited together so that the overall story is wrong
  3. News stories that are factual but out of context, thus not telling the whole story
  4. News stories and commentary coloured by the opinion of the author
  5. News stories that are in fact reported accurately and neutrally, but where some dismiss it because they don't like it.
It seems Trump and his more fanatical followers like to label a lot of category 4 stories as 1 and 2. But I also think (and I believe @Cornfed Hick agrees with me in his last post) that there's a bit too much of 4. Regular news that gets overblown because of the current situation and perhaps because Trump himself has fueled the fire.

At the same time, it is perfectly legal and good to have strong opinions on the President of the US and his staff. But it is also important to separate between what is news coverage and what is expression of opinions.
 
What about this article. Shall we categorize it? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

edit:
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
It seems Trump and his more fanatical followers like to label a lot of category 4 stories as 1 and 2.
Click to expand...
And 5 is labeled as 1.
And 4 can surely be labeled as 1 via 5.

I mean, category 4 is not liked (5), and then dismissed to fake news (1), rather than admitting they don't like it. The small gathering of the crowd during the inauguration was a prime example. The only reason to dismiss was the dislike.

Opinions can colour news, but they can also colour interpretation while reading articles. When opinions don't change facts and still make a good point across, they shouldn't be dismissed too easily. I'd like to see when the line is crossed.

An album review is also done with an opinion. Commentary on news can also be done with an opinion. The reader should be able to recognize if it's opinionated or not.

Cornfed Hick said:
It's gotten to the point where it is hard to differentiate between the neutral articles (there appear to be some) and the skewed ones.
Click to expand...
Really? Let's see. I'd like to see examples. Let's make this more concrete.
 
Last edited:
Saying Trump is lying isn't a liberal position - it's the truth. The NYT does have a lot of left-leaning articles, though - I recognize that. But as Stephen Colbert once said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias".

Trump has done a handful of good things, but he's done so, so, so much bad.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I also think (and I believe @Cornfed Hick agrees with me in his last post) that there's a bit too much of 4. Regular news that gets overblown because of the current situation and perhaps because Trump himself has fueled the fire.
Click to expand...

Yes.

By the way, the next Trump staffer who says "fake news" should be kicked in the dick. (And I'm including Kellyanne Conway in that sentence.) They are using the term incorrectly. Like Foro did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top