Jump to content


Photo

'skeptic' YouTubers


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 16 February 2017 - 12:00 PM

Are you implying that people don't listen to CNN and NYTimes? Because I think it's a commonly known fact that the left is largely in control of American media, given there's only one major network that leans right.


The difference is that CNN reports news, and fox doesn't. It is left leaning, but not nearly as opinionated.

#22 HarryG

HarryG

    Crocker Free Since '83

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,241 posts
  • LocationBanishment! We could be next!

Posted 16 February 2017 - 02:19 PM

.

The difference is that CNN reports news, and fox doesn't. It is left leaning, but not nearly as opinionated.

 

Huh, me and Donald must not be the only ones who think it's fake news, because the country of Venezuela has apparently dropped the network after yesterday?

http://variety.com/2...cnn-1201989623/

 

And I can tell that they have at least a FEW interesting opinions regarding comedy and such.


I Am The Definitive King of Red Text

b679c1ed88392a75e8676e3ca287a7e2.png


#23 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 16 February 2017 - 04:11 PM

Huh, me and Donald must not be the only ones who think it's fake news, because the country of Venezuela has apparently dropped the network after yesterday?

http://variety.com/2...cnn-1201989623/

You, a Trump supporter, are backing a socialist country's censorship of media? You sure?

 

Now, I am going to say I'm not the biggest fan of CNN, especially their television network. I am honestly not surprised if one of their stupid guests were laughing at a hate crime.



#24 HarryG

HarryG

    Crocker Free Since '83

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,241 posts
  • LocationBanishment! We could be next!

Posted 16 February 2017 - 05:11 PM

You, a Trump supporter, are backing a socialist country's censorship of media? You sure?

 

Now, I am going to say I'm not the biggest fan of CNN, especially their television network. I am honestly not surprised if one of their stupid guests were laughing at a hate crime.

That's not a guest, that's a reporter. I'm not backing it, I just find it funny that there are other places in agreement in terms of the quality of news. Wouldn't it make more sense in a governmental way for the socialist country to drop FOX as a network?


I Am The Definitive King of Red Text

b679c1ed88392a75e8676e3ca287a7e2.png


#25 Erik

Erik

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 563 posts
  • LocationOn your screen, obviously.

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:16 AM

CNN is biased

FOX is biased

 

To be very honest, I believe that every media outlet has their own political agenda. Whether they're paid/forced or not. 


  • Sakamoto likes this

SIGNATURE

 

uh


#26 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 17 February 2017 - 04:18 AM

That's not a guest, that's a reporter. I'm not backing it, I just find it funny that there are other places in agreement in terms of the quality of news. Wouldn't it make more sense in a governmental way for the socialist country to drop FOX as a network?


The difference is that Fox does not talk about Venezuela.

#27 Hyperqube

Hyperqube

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:23 PM

I just find it funny that there are other places in agreement in terms of the quality of news.

*cough* *cough*
  • CNN international: 200+ countries
  • Fox News Channel international: 40+ countries
Sorry, had some facts stuck in my throat. Go on.
  • Sakamoto likes this

#28 Keroro1454

Keroro1454

    The Greatest of Gatsbies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • LocationArgent D'Nur

Posted 17 February 2017 - 05:18 PM

The difference is that Fox does not talk about Venezuela.

Drawing from results on the first page of a Google News search of "_____ Venezuela" filtered to show the past week as the most relevant time-frame (Excluding reports about it blocking CNN, which of course is partisan and wouldn't contribute to a defense of their international reporting, as a side note 2 results for this topic were presented by Fox, one result by CNN):

 

FOX News:

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ion-leader.html

http://www.foxnews.c...rafficking.html

http://www.foxnews.c...-elections.html

http://www.foxnews.c...is-deepens.html

 

CNN News:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...dent/index.html

 

I'm not sure why you would assume FOX News wouldn't report on Venezuela. They're an (effectively) failed socialist state that is extremely volatile. Not only is the volatility of their government and the growing humanitarian crisis there newsworthy enough, they are also a prime example of socialism's many failings and thus is attractive with a Republican neo-con audience, and while FOX's viewership is growing to include a younger demographic a large number of their viewers are still of an older demographic that tends to strongly agree with such a political philosophy.

 

 

*cough* *cough*

  • CNN international: 200+ countries
  • Fox News Channel international: 40+ countries
Sorry, had some facts stuck in my throat. Go on.

 

 

So you're saying that a largely US domestic-focused channel, with a heavy emphasis on opinion segments, is less international than the channel that has a significant emphasis on news broadcasts that tackle international events? My god, this is scandalous!

 

Sarcasm aside, Harry clearly specified he found it an amusing anecdote, he was not citing it as an arguing point. It'd be a cute introduction that either side of the debate could use, and he acknowledges it, so there's no need to be quite so rude and passive-aggressive.


  • HarryG likes this
funny-gif-Mario-game-jump-pet1.gif
 
>tfw Someone steals your proof and gets their suggestion accepted without crediting you
 

#29 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 17 February 2017 - 06:14 PM

Drawing from results on the first page of a Google News search of "_____ Venezuela" filtered to show the past week as the most relevant time-frame (Excluding reports about it blocking CNN, which of course is partisan and wouldn't contribute to a defense of their international reporting, as a side note 2 results for this topic were presented by Fox, one result by CNN):

 

FOX News:

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ion-leader.html

http://www.foxnews.c...rafficking.html

http://www.foxnews.c...-elections.html

http://www.foxnews.c...is-deepens.html

 

CNN News:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...dent/index.html

You really think CNN reported ONCE on Venezuela? You do make a good point that Fox does not report on Venezuela, which I admit I did not do my research. 

 

Regardless, it is not ridiculously retarded how you and HarryG are defending censorship of media just because you disagree with them? That is a major violation of free speech, and should be condemned by any sane American.

 

God, I never knew Trump supporters supported censorship of media?? Where did that come from?! This is mad



#30 Keroro1454

Keroro1454

    The Greatest of Gatsbies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • LocationArgent D'Nur

Posted 17 February 2017 - 07:06 PM

You really think CNN reported ONCE on Venezuela? You do make a good point that Fox does not report on Venezuela, which I admit I did not do my research. 

Regardless, it is not ridiculously retarded how you and HarryG are defending censorship of media just because you disagree with them? That is a major violation of free speech, and should be condemned by any sane American.

God, I never knew Trump supporters supported censorship of media?? Where did that come from?! This is mad

 

Okay, god there's a lot to address here so I'm going to break this down piece by piece.

 

 

You really think CNN reported ONCE on Venezuela? You do make a good point that Fox does not report on Venezuela, which I admit I did not do my research. 

 

No, I obviously don't think that CNN has reported once on Venezuela. The mere proposal that anyone would believe that is absurd, given how easy it is to literally look on Google. So let's recall exactly what I said

 

Drawing from results on the first page of a Google News search of "_____ Venezuela" filtered to show the past week as the most relevant time-frame (Excluding reports about it blocking CNN, which of course is partisan and wouldn't contribute to a defense of their international reporting)

 

I clearly state I looked at the articles published in the past week, as filtered by Google's "Past Week" priority relevance option. While it is completely possible an article slipped through the cracks with Google's algorithm, I doubt it missed 3. Thus, I am simply presenting how many articles were published by each news source on Venezuela in the past week. Clearly, Fox reported significantly moreso on the country, which invalidates your argument. That was the express purpose of my evidence, I was not extrapolating further to whether this means Fox has more coverage in general, etc. I was simply showing that not only did Fox report on Venezuela in the past week, but actually did so four times, whereas CNN only reported on the country once this week.

 

Regardless, it is not ridiculously retarded how you and HarryG are defending censorship of media just because you disagree with them?

 

First, let's not toss around vulgarities for the sake of vulgarities. As much as I appreciate being called retarded, I don't. So let's skip that next time.

 

Now then, I am not supporting or defending the censorship of media. When Harry cited the censorship of CNN, and then later clarified further, it seemed extremely obvious he was pointing out this fact not as a shining example of government policy or even human rights, but as an anecdote. If one were giving a speech about the issues of CNN, Harry's discussion on Venezuela would be the cheeky intro, as it is not a strong point of argument, but a simple example of humorous irony. The irony is pretty simple- a authoritarian socialist state is agreeing with the rhetoric espoused by a channel that leans heavily towards a Republican ideology (Anti-socialism/communism), specifically a neo-con variant which is extremely, extremely against anti-democratic states like Venezuela.

 

Not to mention I don't disagree with CNN as a channel. I disagree with journalism that seeks not to provide unbiased information, but journalism that purposefully avoids mentioning aspects of issues or entirely falsifies (Accidental or otherwise) information in order to present a story that aligns with a specific political agenda/opinion. For example, the recent immigration ban by President Trump. I am repulsed not only by the media's consistent downplaying of the temporary aspect of the ban, but equally so by the repeated denial the ban was angled as a "Muslim" ban (Ignoring the issue of the country list) despite Trump's own words and clarification into "special statuses" of immigrants from those areas. The issue of the ban, of course, is an entirely separate issue that I won't go into detail on, including my own views on it, but it serves as a good example here.

 

That is a major violation of free speech, and should be condemned by any sane American.

 

Obviously. I wouldn't want CNN censored any more than I would want RT censored, as grossly propagandist for the Russian government as it is.

 

God, I never knew Trump supporters supported censorship of media?? Where did that come from?! This is mad

 

I am not a Trump "supporter". I would have, had it been possible, voted for Mrs. Clinton despite some concerns over her connections to foreign governments as I felt she was simply much more experienced. However, Mr. Trump is now President Trump, and I believe it is important to not live in denial for the next four years, plugging my ears and shouting that Trump is bad and an evil Nazi. I believe it is crucial we fairly examine President Trump's policies from all angles, and then evaluate what are the positives and, if present, the negatives of such a policy. If we find there is significant reason to oppose a policy of his, on basis beyond it not aligning with a liberal or conservative ideology, then we have an equal responsibility to oppose it. Again, I will call to mind the example of the immigration ban. It's important that we understand the problems with the ban beyond it violating party politics. Instead of flat-out rejecting it on the grounds of "omg its racist and mean", we could oppose it on the grounds that it doesn't address the actual problem of domestic terrorism in the United States, which is homegrown children of these immigrants. So instead of rejecting, we argue for a re-evaluation and re-designing of the ban.

 

And even if we fundamentally disagree with Trump's policies, for example I strongly oppose his stance on environmental issues, I believe it is crucial we look at why he's pushing forward these ideas. How does it align with his broader thinking? Doing so will leave us much better equipped to argue for different ideas, rather than stating "Trump hates the environment" and then furthering a narrative that depicts Trump as a mustache-twirling villain. And this is important when we hear arguments from Trump supporters or supporters of specific policies of his. Don't plug your ears, listen to the argument. Maybe you'll find their reasoning is sound and you yourself are swayed. Or maybe all of the unbiased research you've conducted will show you why these policies, in your opinion, are a net loss for America. Either way, this fosters unity in a country constantly moving towards further division.

 

And as a final side note, while again I do not support President Trump insomuch as I did not and would not vote for him, I'd like to put out a plea that the people of America show a degree of respect. You may disagree with him on everything, and maybe that disagreement isn't even grounded in logic but emotion. But irregardless, Mr. Trump is our President, and we should show him the respect the position bestows upon him. Mindless and inappropriate insults do not strengthen your argument or your cause; they serve only to further divide this country.


funny-gif-Mario-game-jump-pet1.gif
 
>tfw Someone steals your proof and gets their suggestion accepted without crediting you
 

#31 Hyperqube

Hyperqube

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 18 February 2017 - 12:58 AM

So you're saying that a largely US domestic-focused channel, with a heavy emphasis on opinion segments, is less international than the channel that has a significant emphasis on news broadcasts that tackle international events? My god, this is scandalous!

Sarcasm aside,

... err ... You might have to work on your sarcasm... because ... well ... yes?
  • if it's "US domestic-focused" * vs "international" ** , you're agreeing Sakamoto's point - in that they Fox News doesn't rock the boat as much as CNN
  • if it's "opinion segments" * vs "new broadcast" ** , you're disagreeing with Harry's point ("Huh, me and Donald must not be the only ones who think it's fake news" and "I just find it funny that there are other places in agreement in terms of the quality of news")
*: Your words describing Fox News
**: Your words describing CNN


there's no need to be quite so rude and passive-aggressive

Passive-aggressive? Barely.
Rude? ... if you think that was rude, I do not think you'll survive the internet.

#32 HarryG

HarryG

    Crocker Free Since '83

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,241 posts
  • LocationBanishment! We could be next!

Posted 18 February 2017 - 09:57 AM

... err ... You might have to work on your sarcasm... because ... well ... yes?

  • if it's "US domestic-focused" * vs "international" ** , you're agreeing Sakamoto's point - in that they Fox News doesn't rock the boat as much as CNN
  • if it's "opinion segments" * vs "new broadcast" ** , you're disagreeing with Harry's point ("Huh, me and Donald must not be the only ones who think it's fake news" and "I just find it funny that there are other places in agreement in terms of the quality of news")
*: Your words describing Fox News
**: Your words describing CNN


Passive-aggressive? Barely.
Rude? ... if you think that was rude, I do not think you'll survive the internet.

 

I said I found it funny. If I had a better point don't you think I would have played that trump card (ha ha) ages ago. Guess you also had a sense of urgency stuck in your throat.


  • Keroro1454 likes this

I Am The Definitive King of Red Text

b679c1ed88392a75e8676e3ca287a7e2.png


#33 Keroro1454

Keroro1454

    The Greatest of Gatsbies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • LocationArgent D'Nur

Posted 18 February 2017 - 02:42 PM

if it's "US domestic-focused" * vs "international" ** , you're agreeing Sakamoto's point - in that they Fox News doesn't rock the boat as much as CNN

if it's "opinion segments" * vs "new broadcast" ** , you're disagreeing with Harry's point ("Huh, me and Donald must not be the only ones who think it's fake news" and "I just find it funny that there are other places in agreement in terms of the quality of news")

 

*: Your words describing Fox News
**: Your words describing CNN

 

 

Let's take a quick peak at what the full statement I made for each news source was, shall we? Instead of just leaving out adjectives that greatly alter my statement?

 

My words to describe Fox News were heavy emphasis on opinion segments, and my words on CNN were significant emphasis on news broadcasts.

 

 

Passive-aggressive? Barely.

Rude? ... if you think that was rude, I do not think you'll survive the internet.

 

Your language was unnecessarily aggressive in such a way that does not foster intelligent debate but serves only to belittle the opposing side. I'm well aware there are much ruder places on the Internet, but that does not mean we need to foster such an environment, especially in a forum dedicated to in theory debating intelligently and politely.


  • HarryG likes this
funny-gif-Mario-game-jump-pet1.gif
 
>tfw Someone steals your proof and gets their suggestion accepted without crediting you
 

#34 Hyperqube

Hyperqube

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 19 February 2017 - 01:09 AM

My words to describe Fox News were heavy emphasis on opinion segments, and my words on CNN were significant emphasis on news broadcasts.

Yes, and you also ended it with a sarcastic "My god, this is scandalous!" being an indication that you considered your statement to be evident.

But the thing is, that the statement is only evident, if we're not talking about exceptions. If we're not talking about a channel so poorly, that, dispits emphasis, it's actually a horrible news channels. Or a channel so fantastic, that, dispite emphasis on oppinion pieces, is actually a fantatsic news channel

It's nonsensical if you were to say something akin
 

So you're saying that a <good news channel>, is less international than the <bad news channel>, this is scandalous!

Sarcasm aside


While your written words indeed were "heavy emphasis on opinion segments" and "significant emphasis on news broadcasts"; to make the context make sense, it's only possible if you would be saying something akin
 

So you're saying that a <bad news channel>, is less international than the <good news channel>, this is scandalous!

Sarcasm aside


((as you chose to ignore the "US domestic-focused" and "international" in what you described as "the full statement" you made, I can only presume you did not consider it "adjectives that greatly alter [your] statement" - so I did ignore them as well))




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users