-
@Tim To me the source matters, because you don't know whether something is genuine and real when sources like disclose tv post it, because they're known for their propaganda.
After looking at more credible/objective news sources, I've seen that they're reporting on protests where a group of people damaged the Democratic Party HQ building in Portland and, apparently, some other property, in Seattle.
-
@Stargazer id say a decent % of this thread has some reference to the source of something posted, MSM etc
-
@Kiwiwomble feels like he's gonna cop shit either way. Delays to be more (genuinely?) inclusive, or push ahead with a plan that only one group favours (with likely disagreement internally) and that flies in the face of working with the Reps.
-
@Paekakboyz maybe he thinks if they try and just push through they'll just end up with Rep pushback which will delay things anyway
-
@Stargazer said in US Politics:
@Tim To me the source matters, because you don't know whether something is genuine and real when sources like disclose tv post it, because they're known for their propaganda
And therein lies the problem. If the last four years tells us anything, it's that the media will make stuff up, fake videos or, in the case of Hunter Biden, simply not report stuff which damages their agenda or the politicians they support.
-
@Victor-Meldrew has the actual 'truth' about Hunter Biden come out? that laptop stuff got pretty bloody murky and iffy given Guliani was 100% it was a smoking gun. At least in terms of his allegedly illegal behaviour, where the general grubiness of his lifestyle was pretty easy to pick up.
-
@Paekakboyz said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew has the actual 'truth' about Hunter Biden come out? that laptop stuff got pretty bloody murky and iffy given Guliani was 100% it was a smoking gun. At least in terms of his allegedly illegal behaviour, where the general grubiness of his lifestyle was pretty easy to pick up.
It isn't the story - it was the way it was shut down by the MSM as soon as Joe Biden called it "Russian Propaganda". Some claimed they weren't going to cover it as the information was obtained illegally and was found on "stolen property".
Can't imagine that happening if it was Don Jr or, to be even-handed, Slick Willie's brother.
-
@Victor-Meldrew if what biden jnr did wasn't a story...is there any chance the MSM didn't cover it because it wasn't a story?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew if what biden jnr did wasn't a story...is there any chance the MSM didn't cover it because it wasn't a story?
Not to mention the FBI during a hostile Republican presidency who had an interest in hanging him up
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
It isn't the story - it was the way it was shut down by the MSM as soon as Joe Biden called it "Russian Propaganda". Some claimed they weren't going to cover it as the information was obtained illegally and was found on "stolen property".
Can't imagine that happening if it was Don Jr or, to be even-handed, Slick Willie's brother.
Worth noting the FBI money laundering case has been open for well over a year now. The first left wing papers to cover it did so a week after the election.
Legit story not reported on for political reasons.
As mentioned earlier the Greenwald article covered the open questions and what was and wasn’t legit quite well. It’s slightly out of date but still relevant for those that want to educate themselves.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew if what biden jnr did wasn't a story...is there any chance the MSM didn't cover it because it wasn't a story?
How do we know it wasn't a story if it wasn't covered and was deliberately censored by the media? In particular:
-
Why did Twitter & Facebook block users commenting on it and posting links to the New York Post story?
-
Why are Twitter & Facebook censoring the story?
-
If, as they claim the story was "mis-information" , why didn't they do the same with stories which damaged Trump?
-
As they didn't do this with anti-Trump stories, are they covering up for someone? If so who?
-
Has a deal been done with Joe Biden Snr to water down any Tech firm regulation?
These aren't loopy conspiracy rantings but serious questions about the relationships between the press, censorship and politicians running the country and who decides what Joe Public gets to see and hear.
-
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew if what biden jnr did wasn't a story...is there any chance the MSM didn't cover it because it wasn't a story?
How do we know it wasn't a story if it wasn't covered and was deliberately censored by the media? In particular:
so we expect the media to run stories like "we looked into this rumor...and there was not substantiated"...yes, the public wouldn't get sick of that and then have a go about wasting their time
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew if what biden jnr did wasn't a story...is there any chance the MSM didn't cover it because it wasn't a story?
How do we know it wasn't a story if it wasn't covered and was deliberately censored by the media? In particular:
so we expect the media to run stories like "we looked into this rumor...and there was not substantiated"...
Yes. It's a thing called journalism. Laying out the facts and letting the public decide - not deciding what the public can and can't see and discuss,
yes, the public wouldn't get sick of that and then have a go about wasting their time
Why would the public get sick of being presented with facts?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew if what biden jnr did wasn't a story...is there any chance the MSM didn't cover it because it wasn't a story?
How do we know it wasn't a story if it wasn't covered and was deliberately censored by the media? In particular:
so we expect the media to run stories like "we looked into this rumor...and there was not substantiated"...
Yes. It's a thing called journalism. Laying out the facts and letting the public decide - not deciding what the public can and can't see and discuss,
yes, the public wouldn't get sick of that and then have a go about wasting their time
Why would the public get sick of being presented with facts?
if they spend more time reporting on things that havent happened than have happened...yes
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew if what biden jnr did wasn't a story...is there any chance the MSM didn't cover it because it wasn't a story?
How do we know it wasn't a story if it wasn't covered and was deliberately censored by the media? In particular:
so we expect the media to run stories like "we looked into this rumor...and there was not substantiated"...
Yes. It's a thing called journalism. Laying out the facts and letting the public decide - not deciding what the public can and can't see and discuss,
yes, the public wouldn't get sick of that and then have a go about wasting their time
Why would the public get sick of being presented with facts?
if they spend more time reporting on things that havent happened than have happened...yes
Both are facts. Your argument appears to be that the two blokes who own Twitter and Facebook should decide what facts the public should see and discuss. Otherwise the public would get bored. How would they know?
-
@Victor-Meldrew not may argument at all, didn't even mention social media
I thought we were talking about journalism, I don't consider social media platforms journalism
US Politics