Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 6:28:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 4:05:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Feb 20, 2019 4:22:30 GMT
Does she have a source for her 85% or just a feeling?
And, FTR, I think "former CBS reporter" is more accurate than "CBS's Lara Logan". She lost credibility with her Benghazi report on 60 Minutes more than 5 years ago.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,377 
|
Post by katybee on Feb 20, 2019 4:28:49 GMT
1. Who is she? I’ve literally never heard of her.
2. Is calling out Donald Trump on his lies (some so blatant they’re RIDICULOUS) propaganda-like?
3. Most of the opinions I have of Donald Trump come from listening to HIM. I don’t need other people to tell me he’s an idiot. He does a great job of it all by himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by mom26 on Feb 20, 2019 5:15:38 GMT
I think the point she is trying to make is that the vast majority of news sources have become more about opinion and political bent than about presenting an unbiased view of the facts.
When that line is crossed, news becomes nothing more than propaganda.
It's a dangerous place in history that we find ourselves in, once again. Propaganda masquerading as news. I seem to recall that happened once before.....with disastrous results.
|
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 20, 2019 5:59:31 GMT
I think the point she is trying to make is that the vast majority of news sources have become more about opinion and political bent than about presenting an unbiased view of the facts. When that line is crossed, news becomes nothing more than propaganda. It's a dangerous place in history that we find ourselves in, once again. Propaganda masquerading as news. I seem to recall that happened once before.....with disastrous results. When you (any media) are quoting the president verbatim, video taping his actual words, reporting exactly what he says—-how on earth is that “political bent”, or unbiased propaganda? Of course a lot of what is reported on trump is negative—HE IS NEGATIVE. He says and does horrible things!!! He LIES as much as he breathes. Why is reporting on exactly what he says called “masquerading as news” when it’s what he says? It would be irresponsible if media didn’t report on exactly that! When they’re reporting on what he says (lies about) it’s not opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 20, 2019 6:01:14 GMT
I think the point she is trying to make is that the vast majority of news sources have become more about opinion and political bent than about presenting an unbiased view of the facts. When that line is crossed, news becomes nothing more than propaganda. It's a dangerous place in history that we find ourselves in, once again. Propaganda masquerading as news. I seem to recall that happened once before.....with disastrous results. The past propaganda masquerading as news you refer to (I assume) was propaganda coming directly from the government. And that is our biggest problem again today. The government is disseminating lies on a daily basis. As katybee said above, we don’t need to read/watch “opinionated” news media to form a negative opinion of this president. Just going by the words and actions direct from his own lips and the swamp he brought to Washington with him is enough to terrify any thinking human being. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 6:28:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 10:32:07 GMT
When the previous administration does something truly negative and the media reports on it with justifications and support for it, but then doesn't apply that same justification and support in this administration, you don't have honest reporting, you have propaganda-like coverage. When you have something going on in a previous administration that gets little to absolutely no coverage and the same things come up in this administration that become major news stories running for weeks on end and feeding outrage against this administration, you don't have honest reporting, you have propaganda-like coverage.
|
|
pilcas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,904
|
Post by pilcas on Feb 20, 2019 11:41:53 GMT
When the previous administration does something truly negative and the media reports on it with justifications and support for it, but then doesn't apply that same justification and support in this administration, you don't have honest reporting, you have propaganda-like coverage. When you have something going on in a previous administration that gets little to absolutely no coverage and the same things come up in this administration that become major news stories running for weeks on end and feeding outrage against this administration, you don't have honest reporting, you have propaganda-like coverage. Perhaps you might want to give some examples. |
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Feb 20, 2019 12:17:49 GMT
How to make the negatives into positives, or "totally unbiased, non-propaganda reporting."
Thousands of children separated from their parents after crossing border. "But those kids needed to be separated! Their parents were really bad hombres, They were brown! If we hadn't separated them, the kids might grow up to be brown too."
Trump lies about not knowing about the payoff to Stormy Daniels: "But she is a bad woman, and she is just a big stupid slut! The president should be able to pay off anyone he likes to not talk about his sex life, it's not your business! Besides, it's not like none of us have been in the same boat, amirite?"
Trump lies about having no connections to Russia: "He's got every right to share secret meetings with representatives of an adversarial country in order to purse personal business deals! When you get around to making your deal to build a large tower with your name on it, would you want the intelligence community sniffing around in your business? Of course not!"
Trump says on camera that he's willing to accept blame for the government shutdown: "Well, of course he said that. He didn't really mean it though. That nasty woman - or as he calls her, "Nancy" - kept farting and it was making the office smell really bad. He was just going along with it to get them to leave sooner, so the office wouldn't be completely ruined by the gas."
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Feb 20, 2019 12:19:16 GMT
Does she have a source for her 85% or just a feeling? I'd be interested in knowing this as well. Is it part of applying for a job that you have to give you party affiliation? How would that information even be tracked? The only job I've ever done that asked about it was working at the polls. They assigned people so it was an even mix of R/D/I at each location, so it was relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by disneypal on Feb 20, 2019 12:22:10 GMT
I think the point she is trying to make is that the vast majority of news sources have become more about opinion and political bent than about presenting an unbiased view of the facts. I haven't watched the video posted above, but I think this statement has a valid point. It does seem that a lot of news sources have to put their spin on things, instead of just stating the direct non-opinionated facts. |
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Feb 20, 2019 12:34:12 GMT
It does seem that a lot of news sources have to put their spin on things, instead of just stating the direct non-opinionated facts. I think much of this has to do with cable news shows and people not understanding the difference between "the news" and a "news show." There are still plenty of straight-up news reporting sources. AP, Reuters, etc. don't really put much spin on things at all. But when people tune in to Fox, MSNBC, CNN - are they watching "the news" or a show with a personality who puts their spin on it? Rachel Maddow isn't news. Sean Hannity isn't news. They have an audience they are selling their interpretation of events to, and they are going to put their own spin on things because that's the type of show that it is. But many people don't understand that just because it's on a news channel doesn't mean that it's a news show. All of the networks do have basic news reporting, but the prime time shows are generally led by a commentator who isn't straight news. Same thing for written articles - there are news articles, and there are opinions. Many people don't understand which is which. They can read an opinion piece and not realize that it is an editorial rather than a news article. Sometimes it's very clear - but sometimes it isn't. In my newspaper class, my students have to do an article analysis each week. Their choice of articles from any source, really. Even the National Enquirer if they wish. Some of the things I have them tell me is - what type of article is this (news, feature, human interest, review, editorial)? what is the credibility of this source (generally credible, somewhat credible, not very credible)? What biases do you detect, and how did you find them - word choice, slanted speech, etc? BY FAR the thing they have the most difficulty with is the bias question. It has hard for them to pick out exactly why the article is biased, and which words/phrases lead to the bias. If these students in a class where we devote time and energy to learning this information have trouble with it, is it really a wonder that most people who haven't taken journalism have trouble? |
|
|
|
Post by disneypal on Feb 20, 2019 12:42:15 GMT
There are still plenty of straight-up news reporting sources. AP, Reuters, etc. don't really put much spin on things at all. But when people tune in to Fox, MSNBC, CNN - are they watching "the news" or a show with a personality who puts their spin on it? I totally agree with everything you said. For this part, especially, you are so right - the problem is that people will say they are watching the "news" when they really are watching things on Fox or CNN, which are more commentaries but I know many people that will say something like "I only watch Fox news because they tell the true news" or "CNN is the only reliable news source" and such as that - I want to say "That isn't true news, that is their view of current events" but there is no point of arguing with them. There are good reliable un-biased new sources out there, as you said. I just wish those were the more popular ones that people turned to. |
|
|
|
Post by tiffanyr on Feb 20, 2019 13:01:08 GMT
I think much of this has to do with cable news shows and people not understanding the difference between "the news" and a "news show." There are still plenty of straight-up news reporting sources. AP, Reuters, etc. don't really put much spin on things at all. But when people tune in to Fox, MSNBC, CNN - are they watching "the news" or a show with a personality who puts their spin on it? Rachel Maddow isn't news. Sean Hannity isn't news. They have an audience they are selling their interpretation of events to, and they are going to put their own spin on things because that's the type of show that it is. But many people don't understand that just because it's on a news channel doesn't mean that it's a news show. All of the networks do have basic news reporting, but the prime time shows are generally led by a commentator who isn't straight news. Same thing for written articles - there are news articles, and their are opinions. Many people don't understand which is which. They can read an opinion piece and not realize that it is an editorial rather than a news article. Sometimes it's very clear - but sometimes it isn't. In my newspaper class, my students have to do an article analysis each week. Their choice of articles from any source, really. Even the National Enquirer if they wish. Some of the things I have them tell me is - what type of article is this (news, feature, human interest, review, editorial)? what is the credibility of this source (generally credible, somewhat credible, not very credible)? What biases do you detect, and how did you find them - word choice, slanted speech, etc? BY FAR the thing they have the most difficulty with is the bias question. It has hard for them to pick out exactly why the article is biased, and which words/phrases lead to the bias. If these students in a class where we devote time and energy to learning this information have trouble with it, is it really a wonder that most people who haven't taken journalism have trouble? I couldn't agree more with this!! I agree so much that I actually posted on a political thread!! LOL! I am so tempted to post part of this on my personal FB page!! |
|
|
|
Post by bazinga on Feb 20, 2019 13:50:44 GMT
I agree with her about the media. However, I find it hard to take someone seriously when half their chest is hanging out. I have no idea who she is or what her credentials are, but I think she may be part of the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 20, 2019 14:29:36 GMT
I have no idea who she is or what her credentials are Used to be on "60 Minutes." |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Feb 20, 2019 14:56:21 GMT
1. Who is she? I’ve literally never heard of her. 2. Is calling out Donald Trump on his lies (some so blatant they’re RIDICULOUS) propaganda-like? 3. Most of the opinions I have of Donald Trump come from listening to HIM. I don’t need other people to tell me he’s an idiot. He does a great job of it all by himself. Exactly. The reason most of the news stories are negative is because there is so much craziness to report. |
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by Sarah*H on Feb 20, 2019 15:05:56 GMT
I no longer care if the average libtard spouting, snowflake spewing true patriot comprehends the difference between actual news and what is shown on FOX, MSNBC, etc. If you choose to be willfully ignorant or are simply unable to comprehend that the AP and Reuters are different than Tucker Carlson and Chris Hayes, there is nothing to be done about it. But Lara Logan does know the difference. So when she "calls out media for propaganda-like coverage" she is playing the same game. She reels in the suckers and gets herself some clicks and maybe gets a chance to resurrect her now defunct news career as a newstertainment personality on FOX or "reporting" for Blaze or Newsmax or Breitbart or any of those outlets that make their money by making suckers terrified and full of rage. So much winning.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,972
|
Post by Sarah*H on Feb 20, 2019 15:15:27 GMT
The point that I think needs to be made and is a more valid criticism is that there is a lot more news out there in the world than the latest horrific, racist thing done by the Trump administration, more important things happening than the 1000th lie he's tweeted this month and that an informed citizenry needs access to information beyond what is happening in US domestic politics. CNN used to report on things like when massive flooding endangered thousands of people in Bangladesh or when an ebola outbreak in Africa threatened to jump borders or when an armed insurgent group in Indonesia took hostages in a remote village. Now most Americans are too dumb and too disinterested to remember that places like Bangladesh or Indonesia even exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by mygigiscraps on Feb 20, 2019 16:13:20 GMT
1. Who is she? I’ve literally never heard of her. Sadly, this is the first thing that comes to mind every time I hear her name. link |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 6:28:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 16:28:23 GMT
1. Who is she? I’ve literally never heard of her. 2. Is calling out Donald Trump on his lies (some so blatant they’re RIDICULOUS) propaganda-like? 3. Most of the opinions I have of Donald Trump come from listening to HIM. I don’t need other people to tell me he’s an idiot. He does a great job of it all by himself. 1. She's a journalist and the former chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS. 2. When particular other politicians do negative things and even lie (some so blatant they’re RIDICULOUS) and the media reports on it with justifications and support for those particular politicians, but then doesn't apply that same justification and support for Trump, then yes it's propaganda-like. 3. I seriously doubt you're standing next to Trump when you hear what he has to say, so I'm sure you're getting it from the news. News reported, clipped and framed in the way they want to present it. Which is of course, minus all of the support and justification they provided for the previous administration's lies and negative issues. So no, the negative impact you're getting from Trump, often isn't from Trump himself. |
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Feb 20, 2019 16:31:01 GMT
3. I seriously doubt you're standing next to Trump when you hear what he has to say, so I'm sure you're getting it from the news. News reported, clipped and framed in the way they want to present it. Which is of course, minus all of the support and justification they provided for the previous administration's lies and negative issues. So no, the negative impact you're getting from Trump, often isn't from Trump himself. Often, his speeches are shown on live TV. No cutting. No editing. Just Trump. Yes, you're getting the broadcast version. But no, it isn't being framed other than "here's the president giving his speech." If he says something stupid or if he lies, it's not the news making him say those things. It's coming directly from his mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by MichyM on Feb 20, 2019 16:43:02 GMT
I agree with her about the media. However, I find it hard to take someone seriously when half their chest is hanging out. I have no idea who she is or what her credentials are, but I think she may be part of the problem. I don’t have any thoughts about her one way or another, but I think your assessment is unfair. 1. She’s recording a podcast (audio only) 2. Whoever is videoing her is standing, she is sitting, thus the view down her shirt. We could just as easily call the person videoing her a pervert for choosing to stand where he/she stood. 3. She’s leaning forward in her chair. And even if she purposefully decided that she was going to let the girls halfway out, it has no bearing on her statements. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 6:28:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 16:46:46 GMT
3. I seriously doubt you're standing next to Trump when you hear what he has to say, so I'm sure you're getting it from the news. News reported, clipped and framed in the way they want to present it. Which is of course, minus all of the support and justification they provided for the previous administration's lies and negative issues. So no, the negative impact you're getting from Trump, often isn't from Trump himself. Often, his speeches are shown on live TV. No cutting. No editing. Just Trump. Yes, you're getting the broadcast version. But no, it isn't being framed other than "here's the president giving his speech." If he says something stupid or if he lies, it's not the news making him say those things. It's coming directly from his mouth. Yes, that is sometimes true and more often not true. I'm not saying he never says odd or offensive things. He most certainly does. But every opinion stated here about him is more often than not, talking about things that weren't done live. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 6:28:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 16:49:05 GMT
It does seem that a lot of news sources have to put their spin on things, instead of just stating the direct non-opinionated facts. I think much of this has to do with cable news shows and people not understanding the difference between "the news" and a "news show." There are still plenty of straight-up news reporting sources. AP, Reuters, etc. don't really put much spin on things at all. But when people tune in to Fox, MSNBC, CNN - are they watching "the news" or a show with a personality who puts their spin on it? Rachel Maddow isn't news. Sean Hannity isn't news. They have an audience they are selling their interpretation of events to, and they are going to put their own spin on things because that's the type of show that it is. But many people don't understand that just because it's on a news channel doesn't mean that it's a news show. All of the networks do have basic news reporting, but the prime time shows are generally led by a commentator who isn't straight news. Same thing for written articles - there are news articles, and there are opinions. Many people don't understand which is which. They can read an opinion piece and not realize that it is an editorial rather than a news article. Sometimes it's very clear - but sometimes it isn't. In my newspaper class, my students have to do an article analysis each week. Their choice of articles from any source, really. Even the National Enquirer if they wish. Some of the things I have them tell me is - what type of article is this (news, feature, human interest, review, editorial)? what is the credibility of this source (generally credible, somewhat credible, not very credible)? What biases do you detect, and how did you find them - word choice, slanted speech, etc? BY FAR the thing they have the most difficulty with is the bias question. It has hard for them to pick out exactly why the article is biased, and which words/phrases lead to the bias. If these students in a class where we devote time and energy to learning this information have trouble with it, is it really a wonder that most people who haven't taken journalism have trouble? When the journalists themselves are repeating opinion pieces and personality driven stories as factual news, we have a propaganda-like problem with the news leaning to one side. It's also not just a problem with Trump stories, it goes across the board. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Feb 20, 2019 16:51:58 GMT
I agree with her about the media. However, I find it hard to take someone seriously when half their chest is hanging out. I have no idea who she is or what her credentials are, but I think she may be part of the problem. I don’t have any thoughts about her one way or another, but I think your assessment is unfair. 1. She’s recording a podcast (audio only) 2. Whoever is videoing her is standing, she is sitting, thus the view down her shirt. We could just as easily call the person videoing her a pervert for choosing to stand where he/she stood. 3. She’s leaning forward in her chair. And even if she purposefully decided that she was going to let the girls halfway out, it has no bearing on her statements. No matter the angle, her shirt is VERY low cut and not appropriate, IMO. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 25, 2024 6:28:53 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 16:57:12 GMT
I don’t have any thoughts about her one way or another, but I think your assessment is unfair. 1. She’s recording a podcast (audio only) 2. Whoever is videoing her is standing, she is sitting, thus the view down her shirt. We could just as easily call the person videoing her a pervert for choosing to stand where he/she stood. 3. She’s leaning forward in her chair. And even if she purposefully decided that she was going to let the girls halfway out, it has no bearing on her statements. No matter the angle, her shirt is VERY low cut and not appropriate, IMO. Not appropriate for what? |
|
|
|
Post by mygigiscraps on Feb 20, 2019 17:34:30 GMT
I don’t have any thoughts about her one way or another, but I think your assessment is unfair. 1. She’s recording a podcast (audio only) 2. Whoever is videoing her is standing, she is sitting, thus the view down her shirt. We could just as easily call the person videoing her a pervert for choosing to stand where he/she stood. 3. She’s leaning forward in her chair. And even if she purposefully decided that she was going to let the girls halfway out, it has no bearing on her statements. No matter the angle, her shirt is VERY low cut and not appropriate, IMO. She is the survivor of a horrific sexual assault. If she's comfortable wearing that shirt, she should absolutely rock it. |
|
DEX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,354
|
Post by DEX on Feb 20, 2019 17:55:27 GMT
I agree that the door swings both ways. That is why critical thinking skills are so very important. Read things from multiple sources and do your own research. I have to be careful when going through my daily feed from the Washington Post to be sure I don't read any "opinion" pieces. I don't want to read opinions. I want the news reported from multiple sources so I can determine what to believe.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
|
Post by pyccku on Feb 20, 2019 19:53:49 GMT
I agree that the door swings both ways. That is why critical thinking skills are so very important. Read things from multiple sources and do your own research. I have to be careful when going through my daily feed from the Washington Post to be sure I don't read any "opinion" pieces. I don't want to read opinions. I want the news reported from multiple sources so I can determine what to believe. Don't be scared to read opinion pieces, or avoid them! Add them to your mix - so long as you recognize that they are opinions, they can be a healthy way to help form your own views on things. Even if it's an opinion you disagree with, it's helpful to see an issue from various viewpoints. Sometimes you will learn something new, or see something in a new light after reading an opinion.
The strongest way to develop your own opinions is by challenging them.
|
|
