Jump to content

'skeptic' YouTubers


Sakamoto

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.com/world/2017/02/16/venezuelan-court-upholds-sentence-against-opposition-leader.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/13/us-sanctions-venezuela-vice-president-over-drug-trafficking.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/17/venezuelan-lawmakers-block-caracas-freeway-to-demand-elections.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/12/venezuelans-lead-in-us-asylum-requests-as-crisis-deepens.html

 

CNN News:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/world/us-sanctions-venezuela-vice-president/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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.com/world/2017/02/16/venezuelan-court-upholds-sentence-against-opposition-leader.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/13/us-sanctions-venezuela-vice-president-over-drug-trafficking.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/17/venezuelan-lawmakers-block-caracas-freeway-to-demand-elections.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/12/venezuelans-lead-in-us-asylum-requests-as-crisis-deepens.html

 

CNN News:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/world/us-sanctions-venezuela-vice-president/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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2017 at 9:14 PM, Sakamoto said:

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.

 

 

On 2/17/2017 at 9:14 PM, Sakamoto said:

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

 

On 2/17/2017 at 8:18 PM, Keroro1454 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.

 

[Removed]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...