-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
I am quite surprised no one has commented on the James O'Keefe undercover video.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?The problem is O'Keefe is dirty, and a proven liar, who has manipulated video in the past & got caught.
A few years back he had this great video of a charity doing shadey shit, the charity (to help low income people) had its funding pulled, went under, there was a major investigation to go after the charity, which then discovered that O'Keefe had doctored everything, cut the video etc.. and not one person at the charity had done anything.
So O'Keefe got famous as an investigative journo crusader (helped by.. of all people Andrew Brietbart) & a year later when it was revelaled he lied no one cared. Apart from all the low income families that had lost the support of the charity, or the workers that had been fired & spent a year under investigation.
So, shockingly, O'Keefe reveals are not treated with quite the respect you'd hope...
I liked trhis one tho -
In August 2014, O'Keefe dressed up as Osama bin Laden and crossed the U.S-Mexico border in Texas in both directions to "show that our elected officials were lying to the American people" about the border being secure. He was later cited by U.S. Senator John McCain in Congressional hearings
He's basically Borat.
Did you actually watch it?
What did you think? -
Oh, and Robby Mook (Clinton's campaign manager) is on record as approving birddogging the Trump campaign at least once.
-
@canefan said in US Election Thread 2016:
That's probably not so much a conspiracy, rather that stories of Clinton's dealings create far less interest (and therefore revenue) than Trump's antics. He loves publicity and the media now love him, all the way to the bank
Thats the more valid point. People know their polititians are dirty, they've always been dirty, its only news when sex comes into play. Bill Clinton being dirty wasn't that big, Bill getting a blow job was huge. JFKs dad supporting Hitler wasn't that big, JFK fucking Marilyn is still a story. Hell, Cheney fulling cost plus deals Halliburton probably wasn't as good a storey as when he shot a man in the face.
Same here "Clinton close with Goldmans" v "Interview with 10 year old girl Trump promised to fuck in 10 years" is a no brainer for a click driven news industry.
And it goes both ways, a few years back Elliot Spizter (Democrat) was going after wall street in a huge way, really doing some good stuff in terms if cleaning up. Then he fucked a hooker. The corruption re Wall Street was never front page news anyway, but now it REALLY wasn't, not compared to an interview with the hooker...
The doc on that is outstanding -
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank it gets a big " so what" from me. It's pretty obvious some of our journos are close to politicians and support them if they can. I doubt it's different in the states .
Why don't we demand higher standards of the press?
It depends what you mean by higher standards. If you mean they should stop dumbing down newspapers / news sites with stories solely intended to generate ad revenue generating clicks, then yeah they should lift their game or they'll die competing with the link farms.
If you mean they shouldn't be partisan, why the hell shouldn't they be? Everybody else is, and journalists are people too. TBH I prefer a media landscape like in the U.K. where you know the leanings of a particular outlet and judge what it says accordingly. If I read the Guardian ( or the Independent back in the day) I know they're going to go easy on Labour and the left, while the Telegraph is pro-Tory and the Express will be farther right. The alternative there is the BBC which is required to have balance in everything so they are infuriating to watch or listen to, because they indulge douchebags and idiots with the same grave respect they do statesmen and geniuses.
The problem with "impartial" press outlets is that anything they leave out is branded as bias, when editors have been deciding what to leave out forever. It's even got a name - editing. They are under no obligation to be even-handed, that's the very definition of a free press, they can do whatever the fuck they like and if you as a reader don't like it, don't read it and go somewhere else.
Be honest now, the lack of coverage ( which is debatable) of the stories you pick out haven't stopped you knowing about them; you found out about them anyway didn't you? Is your complaint that you had to do some work to uncover the facts you wanted, would you rather have every outlet obliged to cover everything so you don't have to make any effort?
If your problem is that there is nobody in the "mainstream media" who is giving your viewpoint the weight you think it deserves then don't read them. Feel free to tell people you won't read them. But they're not taking public money and they don't have to do what you, the GOP or the Democrats want. And if they choose to, well that's their business too.
Take for example one of the stories. Journalists going to politicians houses for dinner? So what? Are journalists not allowed their own political views now? Is there a law or rule that says they must sit on every fence? They may well have been pro-Democrat before and they may well have given favourable coverage to Clinton, but so long as their bosses are cool with it, who cares? Now if they were coerced into it, or every journalist was required to attend like in North Korea then you've got a point. But they weren't, there were plenty of journalists who didn't attend who were free to report negatively if they wanted. And if they too choose to give Clinton a free ride, so be it. They know the consequences: you and others won't read them, the ad revenue will drop accordingly and they could end up unemployed.
That is what freedom is all about.
-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Both have far more negative and emotive opinion pieces on Trump than Clinton.
Hang on, I thought your (and Trumps) arguement was it was being ignored? So now we have the no. 1 newspaper in the country leading with it, the no. 1 cable news channel leading with it & every other news source covering it...
But you know, not quite enough.
And not more than a Pres candidate with a history of sexual assault..
yet again you are just making stuff up. I never said it was being ignored. I know it is a tactic you use all the time and some muppets fall for it. But I do wish you would stop just making arguments up and assigning them to people you disagree with so you can argue.
-
@canefan said in US Election Thread 2016:
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Both have far more negative and emotive opinion pieces on Trump than Clinton.
Hang on, I thought your (and Trumps) arguement was it was being ignored? So now we have the no. 1 newspaper in the country leading with it, the no. 1 cable news channel leading with it & every other news source covering it...
But you know, not quite enough.
And not more than a Pres candidate with a history of sexual assault..
Hang on there Gollum, it is every poster's god given right to shift the goalposts!!
Oh look... someone is believing Gollums dishonesty....
-
-
-
Bird Dog is one of my favourite Everly Brothers songs - woohoo!
Re MSM and being fair / balanced - it's impossible to do when the two candidates have such vastly different volumes of stories of variable newsworthiness.
Stories (at the very least) should be reported based on their credibility and their newsworthiness - volume should be irrelevant.
Alot of stories that get run in the non Mainstream and less reputable press are newsworthy for their target audience but aren't credible because the sources don't check out. When I used to occasionally check out Breitbart/Buzzfeed, I saw this again and again .
What can give the illusion of bias is when more reputable outlets don't run with stories that less reputable outlets have run with.
As an example, many RW supporters will instantly re-affirm their belief that the press is bias against Trump - theres never any comment from the MSM as to why they didn't run with the story so in the absence of any counter argument, the media bias narrative simply gets stronger.
I saw this yesterday when the NZHerald ran with the oKeefe video which was sourced from Breitbart via News.com. The NZHerald did nothing to validate or corroborate the story and instead ran a story that was authored by a serial manipulator sourced from media outlet very much in bed with Trump. Very poor (but in line with expectations of the NZHerald). -
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank I thought he was a right wing version of Michael Moore.
It just so happens Cracked posted up a link to their article about proven frauds, and used the comparison to Michael Moore:
James O'Keefe has been called a right-wing Michael Moore, which means he is a documentarian who carefully edits his footage to make his subjects look like total dickheads to serve his own political agenda.
...
It seems the one thing O'Keefe doesn't have in common with Michael Moore is that O'Keefe has apparently never been right about a single goddamned thing in his entire life, which is what happens when you invent lies about things that you don't like.That post on Cracked was from 2014.
There is always room for disliking the message, but not the person. That kind of changes when the person is a raging ballsack for most of their time.
-
@phoenetia
There is not really any such thing as 'reputable' press. CNN is just bloody hopeless for example, yet many consider them main stream.
Reputable is incredibly subjective. For example I bet we have very different opinions on which news outlets are reputable.And since when does Herald validate or corroborate a story??? They make stuff up and regurgitate left wing propaganda on a daily basis. Maybe it was the shock value of them doing for a right wing article that got you by surprise?
-
@NTA said in US Election Thread 2016:
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank I thought he was a right wing version of Michael Moore.
It just so happens Cracked posted up a link to their article about proven frauds, and used the comparison to Michael Moore:
James O'Keefe has been called a right-wing Michael Moore, which means he is a documentarian who carefully edits his footage to make his subjects look like total dickheads to serve his own political agenda.
...
It seems the one thing O'Keefe doesn't have in common with Michael Moore is that O'Keefe has apparently never been right about a single goddamned thing in his entire life, which is what happens when you invent lies about things that you don't like.That post on Cracked was from 2014.
There is always room for disliking the message, but not the person. That kind of changes when the person is a raging ballsack for most of their time.
I don't know anything about O'Keefe.... but that post seems to be taking it rather easy on Moore.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
I don't know anything about O'Keefe.... but that post seems to be taking it rather easy on Moore.
Yeah probably. He's irritating as fuck. Guess he wasn't the focus.
-
Interesting juxtaposition of nude Hilary and nude Trump statues. NOT PRETTY!
http://people.com/politics/naked-hillary-clinton-statue-new-york-city/
The regressive and illiberal left indeed.
US Politics