|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 18, 2016 17:58:15 GMT
In my opinion this is not always true. During the election, the media ( 90% of which is owned by 6 corporations) were heavily pro Hillary Clinton (and why not? Those same 6 corporations donated to her campaign). One way to get unbiased news was through facebook. My candidate Jill Stein got zero coverage from main stream media. I depended on facebook resources to keep me in touch with what Jill Stein and her campaign were doing, and unbiased news reports about her. Facebook is merely a gathering spot for news or posts that get posted. It's up to the individual to look at the source of the news and decide if it is made up or not.
I do not read nor do I ever believe anything the Star or the National Enquirer publishes. i'll add...'in my experience' it was mostly people telling what other horrible thing trump/clinton had done no real info on actual policy or ideology
gina ^^^re: getting 'news' via facebook or social media... I think this is SOOO true nowadays.
Example experience: I have a co-worker who, just yesterday, read me a pretty sensationalist-style headline about some topic or other.
I said 'now you know, you can't believe everything you read on the internet' and he said 'oh, this isn't the internet' (but yet he was looking at his phone).
So I asked him, well, where are you reading it, then? and his answer was 'it came thorough my facebook.'
Now, this is a smart man, who is not dumb, at all-- he's very intelligent. It's just that he (and, I suspect, a LOT of other people are the same way) sees things that are posted on facebook and social media as somehow being different than 'stuff you find on the internet' and doesn't question it like you would if you were doing a Google search for the same topic.
eta: I bolded another sentence, and added text in RED- I agree, it 'should be' up to the individual to check their source for their news to make sure it's accurate, but most people DON'T. If they did, the fake stuff would never get forwarded and posted ad nausea in the first place. I believe that (most) people see something on their facebook feed and just assume 'it's posted, someone else must have checked it already' or 'it's posted, therefore it's true.'
And I think I MAY kind of get what birukitty is trying to say, although I don't agree with it. She's saying she used her vote to vote against a Presidential candidate, not for the one she really wanted. Therefore, Trump isn't 'her' candidate, because she wasn't voting FOR him because she agreed with his policies. I can kind of see the twisted reasoning. But, like I said, I don't agree with it. Regardless of the reasoning, people who voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton by voting FOR Donald Trump DID contribute to his winning the Presidency-- they still voted for him in the voting booth-- so he IS the candidate they chose.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Nov 18, 2016 18:14:29 GMT
I really wish there were mandatory critical thinking classes in high schools here. So much of this could be avoided if everyone had decent critical thinking skills. This. So much this!!!
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,034
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Nov 18, 2016 18:14:34 GMT
It's the same logic...I don't mind people who make racist statements, but I'm not racist. I don't mind people who make sexist statements and commit acts of sexual assault, but I'm not sexist. I don't mind people who make homophobic statements, but I'm not homophobic. I don't mind people who make xenophobic statements and policies, but I'm not xenophobic. I voted for a candidate, but he is not my candidate.
Party of personal responsibility?
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Nov 18, 2016 18:30:08 GMT
I did a quick google search and saw coverage on Jill Stein from Time, CNN, Cosmopolitan and RollingStone. But the Red Feed Blue Feed experiment from Facebook, demonstrates all of our Facebook news feeds are heavily favored to show us what we want to see. Which seems like a good idea but if we are relying on FB for our news it is a very one sided approach, especially during a presidential campaign. We all need to be responsible for ensuring we read a variety of news sources and get varied points of view. That won't happen if we rely on Facebook. I looked up your google search stories. I found the two from Time and CNN. Both were negatively based. I couldn't find the two from Cosmo and Rolling Stone. I maintain that there is a lot more coverage now after the election on main stream media than there was during the election-now that Trump has won. You have your opinion. I have my opinion. I felt a right to state my opinion. I'm going to leave it at that. The last thing I want to do is get involved in another political thread. 1. The fact that you couldn't find positive stories on Jill Stein doesn't mean that there wasn't coverage. She has a fair reason to have "negative press" out there.
2. If you voted for Trump he is your candidate. I hope you realize how ridiculous anything else sounds. No one held a gun to your head. You voted freely to pick who you wanted to be President, not who you wanted off the island.
3. The OP and you are both pretty patronizing. I'm not even a Hilary fan and I can see that.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Nov 18, 2016 20:17:23 GMT
Thank you for posting the OP. Very good information for people on both sides of the aisle. But regarding the paragraph I bolded: no, the mainstream media did not lead us astray. The polling was inaccurate. The media can only report on the polling it sees. I can agree that the polling was inaccurate, and more analysis by the media shows that in key swing states it was off by a very small percentage. However it was obvious by the reactions of more than a few of the talking heads on election night that they were overwhelmed that they were wrong and the Hillary wasn't the president elect, consider the magazine covers that were already printed and distributed! I do understand the anger, I get it! There are several stages of grief and Hillary supporters will need to work through that. What I remember is that one person DOES NOT MAKE our government when past elections did not elect the candidate I supported. I did not go around "blaming his voters". Yes the Republicans do control 2 of the branches, but that does not mean that things will drastically change. I really like what Tom Hanks had to say at his MOMA awards Tom Hanks full speech and the shorter version here. For what it is worth my vote didn't even count as my state went blue, my county is pink but that is another statistic worth discussing. I am listening to the concerns and watching as the transition team interviews and makes selections. Am I concerned about some of the selections, of course. But this does not over-ride the fact that are many layers to our government designed to protect us under our constitutional rights. Misplacing anger towards our fellow Americans isn't productive. Moving forward and making our country the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is what makes this the greatest country on the planet. Thanks, but I'm going to reserve judgment. This election was unlike any other, because this candidate was unlike any other. If he changes greatly, maybe we'll be okay. I am concerned that he will continue to be the person he has been for 70 years already, and then the future does not look bright for this country or the world. And don't kid yourself ... he is going to wield massive amounts of power over the next four years and into the future, with both houses of Congress on his side, and a Supreme Court to load up.
|
|
1GreenLegume
Throbbing Member
Posts: 69
Nov 14, 2016 4:29:51 GMT
|
Post by 1GreenLegume on Nov 19, 2016 1:12:13 GMT
A commenter here recently stated that that Trumps older kids had requested top secret security clearances, mainstream reported this morning that is a FALSE news story. Again the intent was to make you angry. *Trump lean* Wrong I'm going to have to dispute what you said above. From Red State: Trump Transition Team Now Admits Request for Trump Kids’ Security Clearances, Blames on “Low-Level Staffer”Someone on his team most certainly did request security clearance for his kids. His daughter is sitting in on meetings with Heads of State from other countries. She does not have security clearance (nor should she when she's supposedly running his business) and there is absolutely no reason for her to there. Same goes for the son in law. This is not ok, and the reports were not false. Save
|
|