-
@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 It’s slightly out of date but still relevant for those that want to educate themselves.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
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@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
I agree. But they are the media. They are now deciding what you and I are allowed to read and which stories journalists have written are allowed to be discussed.
It's not up to them to decide whether a story is real or not or if the public would be bored by it, that's the role of a free press and their readers/viewers. You don't get paper manufacturers or TV set manufacturers deciding editorial policy.
-
@Victor-Meldrew only if you use their platforms, if you don't like what they show then surely you go and read what the actual journalists are writing
I see them as a modern newsagent, the owner can decide what to sell, I cant turn up and yell, you have to stock my newsletter
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew only if you use their platforms, if you don't like what they show then surely you go and read what the actual journalists are writing
I see them as a modern newsagent, the owner can decide what to sell, I cant turn up and yell, you have to stock my newsletter
What if you have only one newsagent and he decides to only stock right wing papers?
What if another newsagent tries to set up but is shut down as the power company doesn't want him selling left-wing papers?
-
@Victor-Meldrew seems like a very unlikely and specific example but I would probably subscribe to a something else
I just think we have to take responsibility for being informed, demanding "someone" else provides me with what I consider a balanced array of information seems to be asking for trouble
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew only if you use their platforms, if you don't like what they show then surely you go and read what the actual journalists are writing
That argument would hold if the platforms and associated companies weren't operating a cartel and there was plurality of media. But there isn't.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew seems like a very unlikely and specific example but I would probably subscribe to a something else
Isn't what I described pretty much what happened to Parler after the Capitol hoo-ha?
I just think we have to take responsibility for being informed, demanding "someone" else provides me with what I consider a balanced array of information seems to be asking for trouble
Wholeheartedly agree on taking responsibility and being informed . But there seems to be a threat to being able to do just that.
-
@Victor-Meldrew is there not, are there not a plethora of both left an right out there "publishing" on their own websites that people could go too if they don't like the info the facebook algorithm presents them?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew is there not, are there not a plethora of both left an right out there "publishing" on their own websites that people could go too if they don't like the info the facebook algorithm presents them?
Why should they have to?
Why should one company - or a cartel - have the power to tell journalists,whose views they don't like, where and how they should publish?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew is there not, are there not a plethora of both left an right out there "publishing" on their own websites that people could go too if they don't like the info the facebook algorithm presents them?
Why should they have to?
Why should one company - or a cartel - have the power to tell journalists,whose views they don't like, where and how they should publish?
why shouldn't they? is that something we feel is an entitlement now? I expect all information to be presented to me with little or no effort on my part
if its important, go looking for it...if its not there investigate yourself, at each point if the effort to do those things outweighs the benefit you'll get then you have the value of that information
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew is there not, are there not a plethora of both left an right out there "publishing" on their own websites that people could go too if they don't like the info the facebook algorithm presents them?
Why should they have to?
Why should one company - or a cartel - have the power to tell journalists,whose views they don't like, where and how they should publish?
why shouldn't they?
Seriously? You're comfortable with the idea of a handful of powerful people deciding which information and news is easily accessible or not?
is that something we feel is an entitlement now? I expect all information to be presented to me with little or no effort on my part
Pretty much. Isn't that why society values a free press with a high degree of plurality and invests in technology and education to deliver and make use of/assess that easily accessible information?
if its important, go looking for it...if its not there investigate yourself, at each point if the effort to do those things outweighs the benefit you'll get then you have the value of that information
But only if you know that information is out there, where to look for it and you can get it?
US Politics